Re: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion"

Update

The idea now is to make a generic "Create New Forum" capability. Not only would this be useful for things like group-private fora, but we'd eventually want to convert the existing sections to the new scheme.

First and foremost, stop using distinction of nodetypes to define fora (i.e., "sections"). Instead, go to a prototype-like (i.e., Self-like) scheme, where a forum is defined by a root node. a super-root node, as it were. (Let's call it the "base" node.) An ordinary root post would be a note, whose parent is itself (or nil), but whose root is the forum base. All of the forum base nodes would be of the same (proposed new) type; they simply differ in content. The title of one could be "Seekers of Perl Wisdom", for example.

Of course, such a change would have far-ranging implications. Super Search, for example, would be drastically impacted. But changes would, almost universally, be for the simpler.

We also wouldn't need to create a superdoc as the "landing page" for each section. :-)

I believe we should have group-private fora, for pmdev, janitors, gods, so that we can get discussions away from the wikis. That by itself would be enough of a win.

So maybe we start by creating the "generic" forum scheme only for use for these known desired fora.

The new nodetype should have a field (NULL-able) which refers to an accessrule. Actually, two: one for defining who can create a root post in the forum, and another for controlling who can read/write replies. We'd have to have a form (in a superdoc) where the properties of the new forum would be specified. The two access rules (root and reply control) could be pick lists, populated with the extant usergroups and accessrules.

s/ $NODE->{root}{type}{title} / $NODE->{root}{root}{title} /

What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?

Comment on Re: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" (create new forum?) by tye (Sage) on Dec 30, 2010 at 20:38 UTC
I like much of your proposal. I don't like the extra layer(s) of indirection that must be traversed every time it must be decided whether or not a user can view a node. So I'd probably actually keep the different node types for specifying different permissions, at least in the first version. Having personally completely implemented a replacement for both of the ugly "approval" systems we still have in place (and use simultaneously) and then repeatedly failing to get it deployed, I'd actually place tackling that mess ahead of this as I expect the wide touch of the approval process will likely make for some nice roadblocks if it isn't significantly cleaned up before. Even before that, how about just working on implementing "patch approval" so we have some hope of building on the recent momentum in site improvements by making pmdev work not quickly revert to the awful place it used to be so we might actually increase the number of active, useful members writing (and applying, testing, reverting!) patches? - tye	[reply]
Re^3: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" (create new forum?) by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 30, 2010 at 21:14 UTC
I'd probably actually keep the different node types for specifying different permissions, at least in the first version. Um.... ugh. That means having a proliferation of note types (as we have already started down that slope with pmdevnote). That is entirely contrary to the whole idea of "one-click forum creation". Perhaps an alternative would be to have a single new note derivative which contains links to access rules (by which I mean, `usergroup \| accessrule \| NULL`). This field would get populated from the values in the forum base in the note's maintenance create. Even before that, how about just working on ... Sure, man. I just wanted to capture my thoughts here. Anybody could work on this. (I'm not the only one who thinks it's a good idea of moderately high desirability.) What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" (create new forum?) by tye (Sage) on Dec 30, 2010 at 21:41 UTC
A new node type would only be required if permissions were different. I don't see this as a "proliferation". You are proposing a similar "proliferation" of new "forum type" nodes which have /more/ fields than a nodetype and would require re-implementing the permissions structure that is already nicely captured in nodetypes. I like the idea of not always having to add a new root node type for each "section". Granted, you were thinking mostly of new fora specifically for the sake of having different access permissions, where two extra nodetypes might be required for some sections. But this is such a fundamental change, that I'd approach it in phases and look at implementing a forum as you've described without simultaneously taking on fundamental changes with permissions (which need to be done very carefully because they are too easy to get wrong -- as we've done several times not too long ago). Anybody could work on this. But you are the only one who was added to gods with a mandate to work on it (patch approval). - tye	[reply]
Re^5: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" (create new forum?) by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 31, 2010 at 16:43 UTC
Re^2: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" by mojotoad (Monsignor) on Dec 31, 2010 at 07:53 UTC
Smells like 'subreddits'. Seriously, I have no idea how the core of E2 works, but sometimes you bump up against a schema and other times you bump up against a codebase/model. Apologies for not having gone and examined the E2 code personally, but where do the constraints arise in this case? Cheers, Matt	[reply]
Re^3: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" by jdporter (Paladin) on Jan 04, 2011 at 16:40 UTC
E2 This is probably a minor quibble, but in the interest of precision, I'll point out that e2 is a web site, like PerlMonks; both are built on the Everything engine, albeit on different versions (0.7 and 0.8, respectively, I believe, based on what chromatic says here. Even the "latest" version of the engine is only at 1.0.)	[reply]
Re^3: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 31, 2010 at 16:50 UTC
Smells like 'subreddits'. Sorry, I'm not getting the allusion. sometimes you bump up against a schema and other times you bump up against a codebase/model I might be missing your point, but I think that in the case of Everything/PerlMonks, there is no useful distinction to be made between the schema and the codebase/model. Everything lives in the database (nearly). Apologies for not having gone and examined the E2 code personally Well, imho, a pmdevil should probably start by reading the various bits of documentation we've built up, first. It can be pretty hard to deduce the architecture by looking at tiny fragments of code. (On the other hand, just trying to can be quite edifying.) What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?	[reply]
Re^4: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" by mojotoad (Monsignor) on Jan 11, 2011 at 08:00 UTC
subreddits as in reddit.com -- pretty much any user can create a 'sub' reddit and become a 'moderator' (and/or invite others, depending on how that subreddit is set up). I'm not promoting the site, though I do hang out there from time to time. It's a useful example. I don't have a particular beef beyond noting that in some interfaces, the V shows a bit of the M, which makes one wonder about the C. Also, anyone that insists on a strict MVC pattern should be walked from the plank of V so that they make their peace with the C. (I don't particularly care if the goal is MVC or not). Cheers, Matt	[reply]
Re^5: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" by jdporter (Paladin) on Jan 11, 2011 at 14:59 UTC


Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
	PerlMonks