> Perfectly understandable. If you wanted to, you _could_ request a > token > that's only valid for a single document! Can you point me to > where the docs mentionedhttp://docs.google.com/feeds/documentsas the > scope?
http://code.google.com/apis/documents/developers_guide_protocol.html#AuthAuthSub Thanks! Ben On Nov 5, 9:42 pm, "Eric (Google)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 5, 9:29 pm, tazz_ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Eric - > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by this? I was able to request a token > > > for scope=http://docs.google.com/feeds/whichworkedwith the > > > ACL feed. Is that the scope you are using? > > > The scope get value I'm using now (and is working) is: > > > http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Ffeeds%2Fdocuments%20http%3A%2F > > %2Fdocs.google.com%2Ffeeds%2Facl > > > Initially I was using: > > > http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Ffeeds%2Fdocuments > > Ah, ok. For the most versatility you should use > the broadest URL possible =>http://docs.google.com/feeds/. > Under that scope, the token will be valid for ALL of the DocList > feeds, > whereas something likehttp://docs.google.com/feeds/documentswill > create > a token that's only valid forhttp://docs.google.com/feeds/documents/* > feeds. > > > > > Because the documentation said to use that. Also (and I may be the > > only one dumb enough to think this way), but until it came back with > > an error relating to scope it did not occur to me that the scope would > > be different than that (because, regardless of the path, the ACLs are > > *part* of the document -- logically if you have access to the > > document, you have access to the ACL for said document). It's not a > > big deal, I just thought there should be a note. > > Perfectly understandable. If you wanted to, you _could_ request a > token > that's only valid for a single document! Can you point me to > where the docs mentionedhttp://docs.google.com/feeds/documentsas the > scope? > > > > > > I think your second example should work, but there may be a reason > > > creating multiple ACLs wasn't implemented. I'll look into this one. > > > Thanks for looking into it; also if there is another format for > > multiple ACLs, I'm more than happy to switch to that. I was sort of > > shooting in the dark given that I couldn't find an example of a feed > > creating multiple ACLs. > > I think you're right. You should be able to construct a <feed> > with multiple ACL <entry>s. I'm tempted to file a public issue > (http://code.google.com/p/gdata-issues/issues/list) but still want > to investigate first. > > Thanks again, > Eric > > > > > On Nov 5, 7:46 pm, "Eric (Google)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 6:02 pm, tazz_ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Anyone at Google: > > > > > Ok, so with some trial and error, I've got it working. A couple of > > > > things: > > > > > 1) Your documentation isn't clear. According to your document the > > > > header should look like this: > > > > > POST /feeds/acl/private/full/document%3A<your document id> HTTP/1.1 > > > > Host: docs.google.com > > > > Authorization: <your authorization header here> > > > > > But it will fail if you don't include a content type. So you should > > > > include that in your example. > > > > > Also I think you should make a note that if you are planning on using > > > > acls you need to include a separate scope item when creating the > > > > token. I thought that the ACL would be included in the docs scope > > > > because the ACL is part of the document, it wasn't until I got the > > > > error that I added the additional scope. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by this? I was able to request a token > > > for scope=http://docs.google.com/feeds/whichworkedwith the > > > ACL feed. Is that the scope you are using? > > > > > 2) There doesn't appear to be any way to add multiple ACLs at once. I > > > > tried: > > > > > <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:gAcl='http:// > > > > schemas.google.com/acl/2007'> > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > </entry> > > > > <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:gAcl='http:// > > > > schemas.google.com/acl/2007'> > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > </entry> > > > > > --- AND --- > > > > > <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:gAcl='http:// > > > > schemas.google.com/acl/2007'> > > > > <entry> > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > </entry> > > > > <entry> > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > </entry> > > > > </feed> > > > > > And a few others, all resulted in "permission denied". I've programed > > > > around it by submitting a request for each e-mail. But this can be > > > > very slow, and it is just wasteful on both our parts. > > > > I think your second example should work, but there may be a reason > > > creating multiple ACLs wasn't implemented. I'll look into this one. > > > > Thanks, > > > Eric > > > > > On Nov 4, 4:25 pm, tazz_ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Folks - > > > > > > I'm about to work on implementing the new ACL features, but I had a > > > > > couple things that I'm not clear on. Ok, the example in the docs is: > > > > > > POST /feeds/acl/private/full/document%3A<your document id> HTTP/1.1 > > > > > Host: docs.google.com > > > > > Authorization: <your authorization header here> > > > > > > <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:gAcl='http:// > > > > > schemas.google.com/acl/2007'> > > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > > </entry> > > > > > > But lets say I have a list of three people that I want to grant access > > > > > to, could I do this? > > > > > > POST /feeds/acl/private/full/document%3A<your document id> HTTP/1.1 > > > > > Host: docs.google.com > > > > > Authorization: <your authorization header here> > > > > > > <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:gAcl='http:// > > > > > schemas.google.com/acl/2007'> > > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > > </entry> > > > > > <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:gAcl='http:// > > > > > schemas.google.com/acl/2007'> > > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > > </entry> > > > > > <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:gAcl='http:// > > > > > schemas.google.com/acl/2007'> > > > > > <category scheme='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind' > > > > > term='http://schemas.google.com/acl/2007#accessRule'/> > > > > > <gAcl:role value='writer'/> > > > > > <gAcl:scope type='user' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > > > > </entry> > > > > > > Also what happens if my modification conflicts with an existing role? > > > > > So let's say in the above that [EMAIL PROTECTED] already is a > > > > > collaborator. Would [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] still be granted access? In essence, do I > > > > > always have to retrieve the ACL to see what's currently going on, or > > > > > if my only interest is that there are particular collaborators (and > > > > > don't care if there is more), is actually faster to just post those > > > > > permissions? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Docs Data APIs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Docs-Data-APIs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
