Hi Allen,
I understand your concerns but I don't feel these changes would
impact a large portion of codebase. In fact, I think all we need to
do is add a nullable 'domain' property to WebsiteData POJO, modify a
couple of methods in UserManager, and add a DomainParsingFilter. See
my response to Henning for more details.
The changes will be mandatory in the sense that everybody will get a
new column in website table (regardless of whether they use domain
segmentaion or not) but other than that I don't see us forcing
anything different on existing users. Domain-segmentation will be
automatically triggered by the presence of a certain request
parameter and/or URL format (which would be re-written to normal
Roller URL anyway). For this reason, I don't believe URL changes you
are planning for 3.0 will affect us (except having to update re-write
rules).
Max
On Mar 21, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
I would just like to voice a few concerns I have about this idea ...
1. You are proposing to modify/rewrite a very large portion of the
codebase and introduce significant complexity to the application for a
feature that I believe most Roller users will get zero benefit from.
For this reason I would say you are likely to get some pushing from me
as far as commiting this to the Roller repository.
It's not that I don't think your idea is a valid and useful one, but I
am concerned that you are proposing something that really only
benefits
a very small number of users.
2. The changes you are proposing would not be optional, so you
would be
forcing everyone into your domain centric approach. This may or
may not
be a good thing, but none the less it will make things harder to
swallow. The more mandatory changes you make the more scared I get.
3. As far as timing goes I just want to let you know that Dave and
I are
planning some fairly significant changes to Roller over the next 3-4
months. The biggest changes will likely come around early summer in
Roller 3.0 and will include a completely redesigned url structure
and a
number of changes to how the front page will work.
I don't want to discourage you from doing your work, but I wanted to
give you early notice about these changes so that you aren't
suprised by
them. The url changes that we will be making will certainly cause
some
conflicts with any work that you do now against the 2.x codebase.
I hate to sound like a worry wart, but the fact is that we run a very
large Roller site and we would have no use for this feature, so it's
hard for me to want to make such a large change when it doesn't add
any
value to my site.
-- Allen
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 05:29, Henning Kulander wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 11:19 -0500, David M Johnson wrote:
On Mar 16, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Henning Kulander wrote:
What's needed here is a way to group "rolleruser"s and
"website"s in
domains so they can be controlled by domain administrators. The
domain
administrator also needs to be able to control default themes and
available themes for one domain. (ie. blog.comany1.no has a default
theme with the Company1-logo at the top, blog.company2.no has a
different default theme, and the company1-theme is not available).
One way to do this might be to add some extra tables to the
database
describing the domain. The table will contain name, description,
domain
settings etc. When a user is added to a domain, a connection
between
rolleruser and domain is created in a new table called domainuser.
When
a website is added to a domain, a connection between website and
domain
is created in a table called domainwebsite to show that a
website is
part of that domain (ie. a user can exist in more than one
domain, and
so can a website). The names of the tables are not final yet.
The normal behavior in Roller should be left as it is now, but the
administrator is given an option to turn on multidomain-mode. When
this
is enabled, the administrator can add new domains, and add an
administrator-user to that domain. Existing websites and users will
continue to exist as before under roller/page/sitename, what's new
here
is a new configuration where a domain administrator can add users,
Are you sure you want to use pathinfo to partition domains? The
previous email seemed to indicate that you'd use (virtual?) domain
names to indicate different sites.
The reason for using pathinfo is to most easily fit into the existing
model. URL-rewriting will then be used to map the virtual domains to
paths in Roller.
wesites and set configuration for the domain. This could be put
under
roller/domain/domainname for example. This level would also have
functionality like the front page for roller, but would only
contain
blogs from this domain, a planet uniqe for this domain, and
optionally
the ability for a user to register for this domain only. (in the
background, the user would also be registered as a global
rolleruser,
but the global site could be filtered out so this would be
transparent
for users).
Sounds like the beginning of a reasonable plan. Note that we are
working on some proposals for changing the Roller URL structure (not
yet on wiki) and the way the front pages works.
Do you have more info on that?
What we need now is some feedback on what mistakes we are likely to
make
here, and how you would like us to proceed so we can get patches
upstream and not break your incredible application. Ideas on how
to do
this would certainly help!
I outlined a plan for doing this in my response to Trygve.
When we get access to the Wiki, we will put up a proposal there.
We are
getting valuable feedback here that we will use in the proposal.
Currently I am doing some experiments with the code to see if this
will
work.
--
Regards,
Henning Kulander
System consultant
Linpro AS - Norway's #1 Linux company
