Menu
▾
▴
binarycloud-dev
|
From: Andris S. <li...@ap...> - 2001-06-29 18:03:27
|
At the moment we have several very happy Unix/Linux PHP programmers talking about the new make system, but what about my old, poor Windows 2000? What do I have to do to get make working on it? I am ready to write/rewrite something as long as I don't have to create another Win2K just to make R2 to work... Another thing - as I understand - it's impossible to write any functional modules for R2 simply because it does not feature any managers yet and in such case I would have to rewrite 50-60% of the db access code later anyway? Am I right? Andris Spruds |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 18:47:10
|
> At the moment we have several very happy Unix/Linux PHP programmers talking > about the new make system, but what about my old, poor Windows 2000? What do > I have to do to get make working on it? I am ready to write/rewrite > something as long as I don't have to create another Win2K just to make R2 > to work... I have admittadly not done any research, but through a couple conversations with odysseas: -There is (apparently) a set of GNU tools for Win(x) - which includes make, find, etc. -I believe you can install command line php. Everything else should work... but again, I haven't tested anything, and I don't do development with Win(x) as a server platform. If you're interested in making a mod on the distro makes so they work with Win, I'm happy to incorporate them :) > Another thing - as I understand - it's impossible to write any functional > modules for R2 simply because it does not feature any managers yet and in > such case I would have to rewrite 50-60% of the db access code later anyway? > Am I right? Sort of, but it wouldn't be "re-write" because you woudn't have to write queries :) Once you define entities, most of your standard queries are generated for you. For strange stuff, you can keep you normal SQL that you wrote before. _alex -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Justin F. <je...@ey...> - 2001-06-29 21:14:12
|
From Andris Spruds/Alex dialog: [== snip, snip ==] > > Another thing - as I understand - it's impossible to write any functional > > modules for R2 simply because it does not feature any managers yet and in > > such case I would have to rewrite 50-60% of the db access code later anyway? > > Am I right? > > Sort of, but it wouldn't be "re-write" because you woudn't have to write > queries :) [== snip, snip==] Now I am writing modules already, (SILLY BOY) for BC/r2, facinated enough with the concept. This means that I am putting PHP into the module, willing to suffer the potential nuisance of "rewriting" when managers are introduced. And, as well, to suffer the nuisance of tweaking as r2 changes. Obviously, all my modules broke with the disposal of $SomeMod->Init(), as this functionality moved over into a constructor. But, I don't mind. I will tell you my experience in a day or two. The point is, I don't think it is as bad as it may appear to you. But, my friends, BC has been a good experience so far. I wrote a module over the last weekend that can browse any MySQL database.table, allowing ADD'ing, UPDATE'ing, DELET'ing, sorting datasets on any field via radio button, finding datasets in any field. Now this impressed me, cause we are always having to build these "Control Panels" for customers to administer their (dynamic) site/shopping cart/news site/auction site/whatever. NOW I ONLY HAVE TO ADD ONE FLIPPIN' LINE in the $bc_page array. This is the promise of BC, for us. If BC stopped developing right now, we would still use it (waal, probably, anyway) Alex has made some rather startling claims for these (I will still call them mythical) Managers. I am a bit sceptical. If they do what is claimed, heck, I will rewrite to adapt them. But don't think that you are wasting your time writing modules right now. You will learn a lot. </ADVOCACY> Error: No opening <ADVOCACY> tag. _jef -- Justin Farnsworth - Technical Director Eye Integrated Communications 321 South Evans - Suite 203 Greenville, NC 27858 | Tel: (252) 353-0722 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 21:49:14
|
> Now I am writing modules already, (SILLY BOY) for > BC/r2, facinated enough with the concept. This > means that I am putting PHP into the module, willing > to suffer the potential nuisance of "rewriting" when > managers are introduced. And, as well, to suffer the > nuisance of tweaking as r2 changes. > > Obviously, all my modules broke with the disposal > of $SomeMod->Init(), as this functionality moved > over into a constructor. But, I don't mind. I > will tell you my experience in a day or two. The > point is, I don't think it is as bad as it may appear > to you. ok :) > But, my friends, BC has been a good experience so far. > I wrote a module over the last weekend that can browse > any MySQL database.table, allowing ADD'ing, UPDATE'ing, > DELET'ing, sorting datasets on any field via radio button, > finding datasets in any field. Now this impressed me, > cause we are always having to build these "Control Panels" > for customers to administer their (dynamic) site/shopping > cart/news site/auction site/whatever. NOW I ONLY HAVE > TO ADD ONE FLIPPIN' LINE in the $bc_page array. This > is the promise of BC, for us. If BC stopped developing > right now, we would still use it (waal, probably, anyway) coooooooool :) > Alex has made some rather startling claims for these > (I will still call them mythical) Managers. I am a > bit sceptical. If they do what is claimed, heck, > I will rewrite to adapt them. But don't think that > you are wasting your time writing modules right now. > You will learn a lot. > > </ADVOCACY> > Error: No opening <ADVOCACY> tag. <thanks> well, as myth makes its way into reality (the code existed already and is used in production elsewhere)... you'll begin to see the light :) </thanks> _a -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: David W. <dwe...@po...> - 2001-06-29 23:30:31
|
>I have admittadly not done any research, but through a couple conversations >with odysseas: > >-There is (apparently) a set of GNU tools for Win(x) - which includes make, >find, etc. Perhaps http://www.cygwin.com/ ? I've never used these tools, being an inveterate Mac user myself :) -dave -- David Weingart dwe...@po... The foot can split wood, but it can't split a watermelon. |
|
From: Peter S. <pet...@gm...> - 2001-06-30 00:15:55
|
> - There is (apparently) a set of GNU tools for Win(x) > - which includes make,find, etc. I have no clue about CVS too but this is probably the best choice for WindowsCVS. http://www.wincvs.org/ regards Peter |
|
From: Benjamin D. S. <be...@be...> - 2001-06-30 00:26:38
|
Hey guys, I have a rather large, complicated project, and am waiting for the permissions information for r2. Doesn't appear that this has been updated in the spec - What is the final goal for this stuff? -Ben -- "Life is short. Live it!" |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-30 00:43:21
|
> I have a rather large, complicated project, and am waiting for the > permissions information for r2. Doesn't appear that this has been updated in > the spec - What is the final goal for this stuff? it's getting there, that's the secon major piece of core to be done. I can tell you that unless you're doing something _really_ esoteric, the infrastructure we'll have will ddo what you need :) Can you give me an idea of some specific requirements that I can speak to? _alex > -Ben -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Benjamin D. S. <be...@be...> - 2001-06-30 01:25:56
|
I need something that can handle: 1) Permission to view the page; 2) permission to view part of a page; 3) permission to view target items handled by a page; 4) of multiple types (files, directories, messages, etc) 5) that can be assigned on the fly and re-assigned as needed without making the user get a PHD in how to use the system. Something I've ben struggling with for a while now. -Ben On Friday 29 June 2001 17:43, you wrote: > > I have a rather large, complicated project, and am waiting for the > > permissions information for r2. Doesn't appear that this has been updated > > in the spec - What is the final goal for this stuff? > > it's getting there, that's the secon major piece of core to be done. > > I can tell you that unless you're doing something _really_ esoteric, the > infrastructure we'll have will ddo what you need :) > > Can you give me an idea of some specific requirements that I can speak to? > > _alex > > > -Ben > > -- > alex black, ceo > en...@tu... > > the turing studio, inc. > http://www.turingstudio.com > > vox+510.666.0074 > fax+510.666.0093 > > > > _______________________________________________ > binarycloud-dev mailing list > bin...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev -- "Life is short. Live it!" |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-30 01:41:21
|
> I need something that can handle: > 1) Permission to view the page; got it. > 2) permission to view part of a page; do you mean module? we have permissions for entity operations, but not modules. that is intentional because modules can both be aware of the permission context, and if you use entitymanager, are governed by Entity Operations. > 3) permission to view target items handled by a page; I need a more detailed explanation of this. > 4) of multiple types (files, directories, messages, etc) perms only controls access to pages processed by php in htdocs - but does it globally for that. > 5) that can be assigned on the fly and re-assigned as needed without making > the user get a PHD in how to use the system. We'll most likely have an editor for it, and all the files are xml and pretty simple. > Something I've ben struggling with for a while now. If you can describe the couple up there that I'm not clear on, I'll give you a complete picture. _alex > -Ben > > On Friday 29 June 2001 17:43, you wrote: >>> I have a rather large, complicated project, and am waiting for the >>> permissions information for r2. Doesn't appear that this has been updated >>> in the spec - What is the final goal for this stuff? >> >> it's getting there, that's the secon major piece of core to be done. >> >> I can tell you that unless you're doing something _really_ esoteric, the >> infrastructure we'll have will ddo what you need :) >> >> Can you give me an idea of some specific requirements that I can speak to? >> >> _alex >> >>> -Ben >> >> -- >> alex black, ceo >> en...@tu... >> >> the turing studio, inc. >> http://www.turingstudio.com >> >> vox+510.666.0074 >> fax+510.666.0093 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> binarycloud-dev mailing list >> bin...@li... >> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Benjamin D. S. <be...@be...> - 2001-06-30 18:10:42
|
Let's say that we have an application that handles files uploaded/downloaded
from a web site.
Users can create directories if they want, from within the browser.
We have different kinds of users - administrators, and users, for example.
Everybody can see the "object permissions" page, and see what the permissions
are for an object they'd like to download.
But, the owner of the object (who uploaded it) and administrators get
additional functionality on this "object permissions" page - they can modify
the permission set as well as view it. (so an extra button automagically
appears, and instead of listing the permissions, checkboxes are displayed)
Additionally, the administrator should have a UI whereby he/she can grant
administrative priveledges to the "object permissions" page.
So, we have:
1) permissions to the page ("object permissions")
2) permissions to portions of the page (set permissions vs view permissions)
3) permissions to the managed object (the things the site manages)
4) of at least two distinct types (files uploaded, directories)
5) A means for administrators to grant permissions to other users to the
"object permissions" page. (and presumably other pages as well)
Does this paint a scenario that makes the needs clear? I can think of several
potential applications where this type of fairly advanced permissions
structure might apply.
-Ben
On Friday 29 June 2001 18:42, you wrote:
> > I need something that can handle:
> > 1) Permission to view the page;
>
> got it.
>
> > 2) permission to view part of a page;
>
> do you mean module?
> we have permissions for entity operations, but not modules. that is
> intentional because modules can both be aware of the permission context,
> and if you use entitymanager, are governed by Entity Operations.
>
> > 3) permission to view target items handled by a page;
>
> I need a more detailed explanation of this.
>
> > 4) of multiple types (files, directories, messages, etc)
>
> perms only controls access to pages processed by php in htdocs - but does
> it globally for that.
>
> > 5) that can be assigned on the fly and re-assigned as needed without
> > making the user get a PHD in how to use the system.
>
> We'll most likely have an editor for it, and all the files are xml and
> pretty simple.
>
> > Something I've ben struggling with for a while now.
>
> If you can describe the couple up there that I'm not clear on, I'll give
> you a complete picture.
>
>
> _alex
>
> > -Ben
> >
> > On Friday 29 June 2001 17:43, you wrote:
> >>> I have a rather large, complicated project, and am waiting for the
> >>> permissions information for r2. Doesn't appear that this has been
> >>> updated in the spec - What is the final goal for this stuff?
> >>
> >> it's getting there, that's the secon major piece of core to be done.
> >>
> >> I can tell you that unless you're doing something _really_ esoteric, the
> >> infrastructure we'll have will ddo what you need :)
> >>
> >> Can you give me an idea of some specific requirements that I can speak
> >> to?
> >>
> >> _alex
> >>
> >>> -Ben
> >>
> >> --
> >> alex black, ceo
> >> en...@tu...
> >>
> >> the turing studio, inc.
> >> http://www.turingstudio.com
> >>
> >> vox+510.666.0074
> >> fax+510.666.0093
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> binarycloud-dev mailing list
> >> bin...@li...
> >> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev
>
> --
> alex black, ceo
> en...@tu...
>
> the turing studio, inc.
> http://www.turingstudio.com
>
> vox+510.666.0074
> fax+510.666.0093
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> binarycloud-dev mailing list
> bin...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev
--
"Life is short. Live it!"
|
|
From: alex b. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-30 23:29:00
|
> Users can create directories if they want, from within the browser.
>
> We have different kinds of users - administrators, and users, for example.
>
> Everybody can see the "object permissions" page, and see what the
permissions
> are for an object they'd like to download.
>
> But, the owner of the object (who uploaded it) and administrators get
> additional functionality on this "object permissions" page - they can
modify
> the permission set as well as view it. (so an extra button automagically
> appears, and instead of listing the permissions, checkboxes are displayed)
Right, but wouldn't that mean you would want to have a module on that page
that only displays if the user owns the file?
That isn't a function of perm.
> Additionally, the administrator should have a UI whereby he/she can grant
> administrative priveledges to the "object permissions" page.
So far, so good.
>
> So, we have:
> 1) permissions to the page ("object permissions")
> 2) permissions to portions of the page (set permissions vs view
permissions)
Sort of, I think this is a function of the module, not the perms system.
Though I can imagine a module permissions system.
> 3) permissions to the managed object (the things the site manages)
> 4) of at least two distinct types (files uploaded, directories)
> 5) A means for administrators to grant permissions to other users to the
> "object permissions" page. (and presumably other pages as well)
>
> Does this paint a scenario that makes the needs clear? I can think of
several
> potential applications where this type of fairly advanced permissions
> structure might apply.
|
|
From: Benjamin D. S. <be...@be...> - 2001-06-30 23:46:32
|
I guess what I'm looking for is like *nix rwx - only for program PORTIONS as
well as programs themselves.
X permissions to a program file lets the user "see" that page.
(object_perms.php) However, that page (object_perms.php) might deal with
different types of users differently.
How is this not a permissions issue? Would you suggest that the module needs
to keep its own ACL (or equiv) rather than have that provided by a similarly
functioning set of code?
-Ben
On Saturday 30 June 2001 16:26, you wrote:
> > Users can create directories if they want, from within the browser.
> >
> > We have different kinds of users - administrators, and users, for
> > example.
> >
> > Everybody can see the "object permissions" page, and see what the
>
> permissions
>
> > are for an object they'd like to download.
> >
> > But, the owner of the object (who uploaded it) and administrators get
> > additional functionality on this "object permissions" page - they can
>
> modify
>
> > the permission set as well as view it. (so an extra button automagically
> > appears, and instead of listing the permissions, checkboxes are
> > displayed)
>
> Right, but wouldn't that mean you would want to have a module on that page
> that only displays if the user owns the file?
>
> That isn't a function of perm.
>
> > Additionally, the administrator should have a UI whereby he/she can grant
> > administrative priveledges to the "object permissions" page.
>
> So far, so good.
>
> > So, we have:
> > 1) permissions to the page ("object permissions")
> > 2) permissions to portions of the page (set permissions vs view
>
> permissions)
>
> Sort of, I think this is a function of the module, not the perms system.
>
> Though I can imagine a module permissions system.
>
> > 3) permissions to the managed object (the things the site manages)
> > 4) of at least two distinct types (files uploaded, directories)
> > 5) A means for administrators to grant permissions to other users to the
> > "object permissions" page. (and presumably other pages as well)
> >
> > Does this paint a scenario that makes the needs clear? I can think of
>
> several
>
> > potential applications where this type of fairly advanced permissions
> > structure might apply.
>
> _______________________________________________
> binarycloud-dev mailing list
> bin...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev
--
"Life is short. Live it!"
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X