Eric - > 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.
Not to bug you too much about this, but do you have any update of any sort? My current implementation can be really slow when they have more than 20 users on a project (btw, I don't know why but sharing Google Docs seems to be substantially slower than sharing Google Spreadsheets - I don't have a question here, I just think it's weird). 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
