Hi Alexander, Il giorno ven, 14/01/2011 alle 16.28 +0100, Alexander Wagner ha scritto: > > Great job for using ^M character! > > I admit I was about to suggest to allow also for another > character in the role definition for easier handling. ;)
That is a good one, although it would make the parsing of firerole rules a bit more complex (since you would need to properly understand that additional character when it happens e.g. inside group-name-based authorizations) and firerole rules are designed to be extremely fast to be interpreted and applied. I would take this into consideration for further enhancements. > If I may, I would suggest to add this to the --help of > bibdocfile. Probably, also with some example. As a newbe > you'll most likely stumble upon such things. Sure, you arere right! > This results in something like: > > [...] > 106:95:::doctype=Main > 106:95:::status=firerole: ALLOW FROM "2011-01-01" > ALLOW ALL > > 106:95:::basedir=/opt/invenio/var/data/files/g0/95 > 106:95:::creation date=2011-01-14 15:12:58 > [...] > > If I get it correctly, in the second line "status=" should > have changed to "firerole=", right? Nope. Status is just a generic attribute of a bibdoc. So when the status is "firerole: foo", then the status is interpreted as firerole rule. If the status was "DELETED" then the file would have been considered as deleted... > Additionally, I still > have the problem, that the file as such is locked, though > the clock is clearly beyond 2011-01-01. Thus if I try to > download the file I'm redirected to the login page and once > I have become John Doe wiht out any rights it tells me this > file is locked. That is strange. I should investigate this and come back to you ASAP. > I wonder, however, if it wouldn't make sense to rethink fft > subfield. It seems sensible that firerole definitions for a > given file are accessible from the MARC editor and thus to > store them in some MARC field for easy handling. Also for > showing the embargo time on the details page and easy > transport of the records between two systems seem to hint at > this. What do you think? There has been indeed some internal talking on putting both record-level and document-level restriction in the MARC although it will take a bit before it will made into Invenio in a stable way. We should definitively bring that thread into this mailing list... Cheers, Sam -- Samuele Kaplun Invenio Developer ** <http://invenio-software.org/>
