Thread: [Semanticscuttle-devel] SemanticScuttle 0.98.0 is near
Brought to you by:
cweiske
Menu
▾
▴
semanticscuttle-devel
|
From: Christian W. <cw...@cw...> - 2011-05-03 20:12:01
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Hi all, The release of SemanticScuttle 0.98.0 is near. All what's stopping me from publishing the release is the configurable-privacy2 and privatekey branches which need some minor fixes and will be merged then. Brett and Mark, can you finish you tasks until end of the week? -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- |
|
From: Mark P. <mpe...@gm...> - 2011-05-03 23:24:01
|
Yes. On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Christian Weiske <cw...@cw...> wrote: > Hi all, > > > The release of SemanticScuttle 0.98.0 is near. All what's stopping me > from publishing the release is the configurable-privacy2 and privatekey > branches which need some minor fixes and will be merged then. > > Brett and Mark, can you finish you tasks until end of the week? > > -- > Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Christian Weiske > > -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software > The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network > management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial > acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd > _______________________________________________ > Semanticscuttle-devel mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semanticscuttle-devel > > |
|
From: Christian W. <cw...@cw...> - 2011-05-04 06:13:07
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Hello Mark, > > Brett and Mark, can you finish you tasks until end of the week? I added a new "sc_schema" table that contains the current database schema version, so we can determine the current schema version in the future and upgrade it automatically. Whenever the database is changed, add your changes in a new file in data/schema/$newversion.sql. In that file, also upgrade the schema version. You need to merge master now and put your privatekey sql changes into the schema files (tables.sql, schema/6.sql, doc/UPGRADE.txt). -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- |
|
From: Brett D. <bs...@fr...> - 2011-05-04 03:18:52
|
I can finish by the end of the week. Rgrds, Brett On Tue, 3 May 2011 19:23:52 -0400, Mark Pemberton <mpe...@gm...> wrote: > Yes. > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Christian Weiske wrote: > Hi all, > > The release of SemanticScuttle 0.98.0 is near. All what's stopping > me > from publishing the release is the configurable-privacy2 and > privatekey > branches which need some minor fixes and will be merged then. > > Brett and Mark, can you finish you tasks until end of the week? > > -- > Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Christian Weiske > > -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software > The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network > management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial > acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd [2] > _______________________________________________ > Semanticscuttle-devel mailing list > Sem...@li... [3] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semanticscuttle-devel > [4] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] mailto:cw...@cw... > [2] http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd > [3] mailto:Sem...@li... > [4] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semanticscuttle-devel |
|
From: Christian W. <cw...@cw...> - 2011-05-11 06:26:41
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Hello Brett, > > The release of SemanticScuttle 0.98.0 is near. All what's stopping > > me from publishing the release is the configurable-privacy2 and > > privatekey branches which need some minor fixes and will be merged > > then. > I can finish by the end of the week. I saw that you did the changes I requested. I'll merge it into master today. -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- |
|
From: Brett D. <bs...@fr...> - 2011-05-13 05:00:57
|
Okay. Thanks. Rgrds, Brett On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:26:31 +0200, Christian Weiske <cw...@cw...> wrote: > Hello Brett, > > >> > The release of SemanticScuttle 0.98.0 is near. All what's stopping >> > me from publishing the release is the configurable-privacy2 and >> > privatekey branches which need some minor fixes and will be merged >> > then. >> I can finish by the end of the week. > > I saw that you did the changes I requested. I'll merge it into master > today. |
|
From: Mark P. <mpe...@gm...> - 2011-05-11 14:06:15
|
I'm nearing completion of the privatekey branch. The delay is adjusting the coding to log in with only the privatekey (which is done), as well as trying to figure out how to adjust rss.php and its call to getBookmarks() without having to change getBookmarks(). Definitely going to try to finish tonight so we can get 0.98.0 out. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Christian Weiske <cw...@cw...>wrote: > Hello Brett, > > > > > The release of SemanticScuttle 0.98.0 is near. All what's stopping > > > me from publishing the release is the configurable-privacy2 and > > > privatekey branches which need some minor fixes and will be merged > > > then. > > I can finish by the end of the week. > > I saw that you did the changes I requested. I'll merge it into master > today. > > -- > Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Christian Weiske > > -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > Semanticscuttle-devel mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semanticscuttle-devel > > |
|
From: Christian W. <cw...@cw...> - 2011-05-11 14:12:50
|
Hi Mark, > I'm nearing completion of the privatekey branch. The delay is > adjusting the coding to log in with only the privatekey (which is > done), as well as trying to figure out how to adjust rss.php and its > call to getBookmarks() without having to change getBookmarks(). > Definitely going to try to finish tonight so we can get 0.98.0 out. If it makes sense to change getBookmarks, we can change it. What are you trying to achieve? -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -= Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 =- |
|
From: Mark P. <mpe...@gm...> - 2011-05-11 15:07:07
|
Just to make sure I'm clear on everything, here's the possible scenarios with the privatekey and user options: When rss.php is called, 1) User is defined, no private key 2) User is defined, private key is defined and valid 3) User is not defined, no private key 4) User is not defined, private key is defined/valid Results: 1) All public bookmarks returned for specified user 2) All public bookmarks returned for specified user including any that are shared to watchlist (with privatekey user being on the watch list) 3) All public bookmarks 4) All public bookmarks including any shared to watchlist bookmarks where the privatekey user is on the watch list. (Please correct any assumptions I made above) #1 works fine, but the rest do not produce the correct results. One place I've pinpointed is the call in getBookmarks() where it calls getWatchNames(). The second argument is true which I believe should be false because we want the list of users that the passed user (argument 1) is watching. The other main change that will need to be made in getBookmarks() is the ability to distinguish these calls from rss.php where the user is authenticated via the privatekey but want all bookmarks (#3 and #4 above). One last point which is unrelated is the "Watchlist" page, should that show the "shared" bookmarks of those users you are watching? It doesn't appear that it is now. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Christian Weiske <cw...@cw...>wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > > I'm nearing completion of the privatekey branch. The delay is > > adjusting the coding to log in with only the privatekey (which is > > done), as well as trying to figure out how to adjust rss.php and its > > call to getBookmarks() without having to change getBookmarks(). > > Definitely going to try to finish tonight so we can get 0.98.0 out. > If it makes sense to change getBookmarks, we can change it. What are > you trying to achieve? > > > -- > Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Christian Weiske > > -= Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 =- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > Semanticscuttle-devel mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semanticscuttle-devel > |
|
From: Christian W. <cw...@cw...> - 2011-05-11 15:15:27
|
Hi Mark, > When rss.php is called, > 1) User is defined, no private key > 2) User is defined, private key is defined and valid > 3) User is not defined, no private key > 4) User is not defined, private key is defined/valid > > Results: > 1) All public bookmarks returned for specified user > 2) All public bookmarks returned for specified user including any > that are shared to watchlist (with privatekey user being on the watch > list) 3) All public bookmarks > 4) All public bookmarks including any shared to watchlist bookmarks > where the privatekey user is on the watch list. > > (Please correct any assumptions I made above) > > #1 works fine, but the rest do not produce the correct results. One > place I've pinpointed is the call in getBookmarks() where it calls > getWatchNames(). The second argument is true which I believe should > be false because we want the list of users that the passed user > (argument 1) is watching. The other main change that will need to be > made in getBookmarks() is the ability to distinguish these calls from > rss.php where the user is authenticated via the privatekey but want > all bookmarks (#3 and #4 above). I assume that getWatchNames uses the current user. Can't you just set the current user without storing that information in the session? > One last point which is unrelated is the "Watchlist" page, should > that show the "shared" bookmarks of those users you are watching? It > doesn't appear that it is now. No, it shows the bookmarks of the users that have you added to their watchlist. Actually the name "watchlist" is misleading, because it's a "trust list". You trust those users on your watchlist to see your protected bookmarks. If you would see the protected bookmarks of the users on your watchlist, you could easily see all protected bookmarks by adding all users to your watchlist. -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -= Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 =- |
|
From: Mark P. <mpe...@gm...> - 2011-05-11 16:00:56
|
> I assume that getWatchNames uses the current user. Can't you just set > the current user without storing that information in the session? The call to getBookmarks() makes calls to getCurrentUserId() and isLoggedIn() which both require data stored in the session (via setCurrentUserId()). So if you want to avoid storing data in the session then we may need to add an additional argument to getBookmarks(). The getWatchNames() has two arguments (user ID, Watched By), so it makes no reference to the session/current user data. Throwing this out as an idea, I could pass the privatekey as an argument in getBookmarks() which will eliminate the need to store any data in the session. Thoughts? On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Christian Weiske <cw...@cw...>wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > > > When rss.php is called, > > 1) User is defined, no private key > > 2) User is defined, private key is defined and valid > > 3) User is not defined, no private key > > 4) User is not defined, private key is defined/valid > > > > Results: > > 1) All public bookmarks returned for specified user > > 2) All public bookmarks returned for specified user including any > > that are shared to watchlist (with privatekey user being on the watch > > list) 3) All public bookmarks > > 4) All public bookmarks including any shared to watchlist bookmarks > > where the privatekey user is on the watch list. > > > > (Please correct any assumptions I made above) > > > > #1 works fine, but the rest do not produce the correct results. One > > place I've pinpointed is the call in getBookmarks() where it calls > > getWatchNames(). The second argument is true which I believe should > > be false because we want the list of users that the passed user > > (argument 1) is watching. The other main change that will need to be > > made in getBookmarks() is the ability to distinguish these calls from > > rss.php where the user is authenticated via the privatekey but want > > all bookmarks (#3 and #4 above). > > I assume that getWatchNames uses the current user. Can't you just set > the current user without storing that information in the session? > > > > One last point which is unrelated is the "Watchlist" page, should > > that show the "shared" bookmarks of those users you are watching? It > > doesn't appear that it is now. > No, it shows the bookmarks of the users that have you added to their > watchlist. Actually the name "watchlist" is misleading, because it's a > "trust list". You trust those users on your watchlist to see your > protected bookmarks. > If you would see the protected bookmarks of the users on your > watchlist, you could easily see all protected bookmarks by adding all > users to your watchlist. > > > -- > Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Christian Weiske > > -= Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 =- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > Semanticscuttle-devel mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semanticscuttle-devel > |
|
From: Christian W. <cw...@cw...> - 2011-05-11 17:33:30
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Hello Mark, > > I assume that getWatchNames uses the current user. Can't you just > > set the current user without storing that information in the > > session? > The call to getBookmarks() makes calls to getCurrentUserId() and > isLoggedIn() which both require data stored in the session > (via setCurrentUserId()). So if you want to avoid storing data in the > session then we may need to add an additional argument to > getBookmarks(). The getWatchNames() has two arguments (user ID, > Watched By), so it makes no reference to the session/current user > data. > > Throwing this out as an idea, I could pass the privatekey as an > argument in getBookmarks() which will eliminate the need to store any > data in the session. Thoughts? Nope, in that case we need to fix the user storage to not depend on the session. I'll fix that. -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- |
|
From: Mark P. <mpe...@gm...> - 2011-05-11 19:11:57
|
Ok. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Christian Weiske <cw...@cw...>wrote: > Hello Mark, > > > > > I assume that getWatchNames uses the current user. Can't you just > > > set the current user without storing that information in the > > > session? > > The call to getBookmarks() makes calls to getCurrentUserId() and > > isLoggedIn() which both require data stored in the session > > (via setCurrentUserId()). So if you want to avoid storing data in the > > session then we may need to add an additional argument to > > getBookmarks(). The getWatchNames() has two arguments (user ID, > > Watched By), so it makes no reference to the session/current user > > data. > > > > Throwing this out as an idea, I could pass the privatekey as an > > argument in getBookmarks() which will eliminate the need to store any > > data in the session. Thoughts? > > Nope, in that case we need to fix the user storage to not depend on the > session. I'll fix that. > > > -- > Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Christian Weiske > > -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > Semanticscuttle-devel mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semanticscuttle-devel > > |
|
From: Mark P. <mpe...@gm...> - 2011-05-11 22:29:21
|
Is there something I can help with? On May 11, 2011 1:33 PM, "Christian Weiske" <cw...@cw...> wrote: > Hello Mark, > > >> > I assume that getWatchNames uses the current user. Can't you just >> > set the current user without storing that information in the >> > session? >> The call to getBookmarks() makes calls to getCurrentUserId() and >> isLoggedIn() which both require data stored in the session >> (via setCurrentUserId()). So if you want to avoid storing data in the >> session then we may need to add an additional argument to >> getBookmarks(). The getWatchNames() has two arguments (user ID, >> Watched By), so it makes no reference to the session/current user >> data. >> >> Throwing this out as an idea, I could pass the privatekey as an >> argument in getBookmarks() which will eliminate the need to store any >> data in the session. Thoughts? > > Nope, in that case we need to fix the user storage to not depend on the > session. I'll fix that. > > > -- > Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Christian Weiske > > -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=- |
×
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