[drupal-devel] Node access module
Hi! Although there are two contrib modules (node_privacy_by_role and nodeperm_role) which leverages the node access system, I have written a third one which is in my (chx) sandbox as nodeaccess.module. I do not intend it to be a contrib module -- I'd like to see it in 4.7 core. Features are: 1) You may give grants per role for each node type 2) Every node may have a grant tab where ordinary users may give additional grants for other users. Admins may edit grants per roles. Whether this grant tabs appears can be controlled again per node type. 3) Users may save these additional grants as default for their content. I think the UI is straightforward. TODO a) provide a mechanism to delete the default in 3) b) provide hooks for group modules so that users may operate on those, too So, this module is much more community oriented than the previous attempts while the admin remains in the driver's seat. Installation now requires a manual emptying of the node access table. Will improve this one, too. Regards Karoly Negyesi
Super initiative, Karoly. This addresses a basic, common need that so many sites have. Look forward to checking it out. -Robert
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10.37, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Oooops almost forgot: Jeff Robbins (jjeff) sponsored the module. Thanks!
more credits: original idea came from genghis of evolt although I doubt he will recognize it in the current shape :). How could I be so numb to forgot him who began the whole thing?
On 12 Apr 2005, at 10:32, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Although there are two contrib modules (node_privacy_by_role and nodeperm_role) which leverages the node access system, I have written a third one which is in my (chx) sandbox as nodeaccess.module. I do not intend it to be a contrib module -- I'd like to see it in 4.7 core.
1. From what I have seen, a taxonomy-based permission scheme is more popular than one using node types. If you aim to get this module included in core, it is worth discussing the idea of using the combination of roles and taxonomy terms, rather than the combination of roles and node types. We should aim to include the most popular scheme in core. 2. Using a tab is OK for now, but ideally this would be part of the new node submission form. The way I envision this, is to have a JetboxOne-like "permissions"-area under the node body that I can unfold/collapse. This lets me set the permissions upon the initial submission (cfr. menu_otf.module). Ideally, we'd be tackle this node submission form "dependency" while we are at it. This makes for an excellent use case. 3. Neil had some ideas on how to configure the default workflow/behavior of nodes. It might be a good idea to read up on this too, or to discuss this some more. Ideally, we'd tackle this workflow "dependency" while we are at it. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
Op 12-apr-05 om 11:03 heeft Dries Buytaert het volgende geschreven:
1. From what I have seen, a taxonomy-based permission scheme is more popular than one using node types. If you aim to get this module included in core, it is worth discussing the idea of using the combination of roles and taxonomy terms, rather than the combination of roles and node types. We should aim to include the most popular scheme in core. But what would you prefer in that case? One module that does allow us to set permissions to taxonomy _and_ node-types? Isn't that to much for one module?
2. Using a tab is OK for now, but ideally this would be part of the new node submission form. The way I envision this, is to have a JetboxOne-like "permissions"-area under the node body that I can unfold/collapse. This lets me set the permissions upon the initial submission (cfr. menu_otf.module). Ideally, we'd be tackle this node submission form "dependency" while we are at it. This makes for an excellent use case. The unfold/collapse method you mention does require CSS & javascript. (I can not think about any other way, of how to accomplish this behaviour otherwise) Do we allow javascript in core now? For a long time, I thought we tried to use alternatives for that.. And to be honoust, I thought you were pretty much against using js inside drupal-core. But, maybe I am wrong?
Are there any screenshots of a new node submission form? Or mockups/examples/documentation? I'm willing to work on this, but would like to know the end goal..
3. Neil had some ideas on how to configure the default workflow/behavior of nodes. It might be a good idea to read up on this too, or to discuss this some more. Ideally, we'd tackle this workflow "dependency" while we are at it. Neil, can you come up with some mockup/writeup/examples?
Stefan
Allthough this is off-topic, I;d like to give some small comments. Op dinsdag 12 april 2005 11:12, schreef Stefan Nagtegaal:
The unfold/collapse method you mention does require CSS & javascript. (I can not think about any other way, of how to accomplish this behaviour otherwise) Do we allow javascript in core now? For a long time, I thought we tried to use alternatives for that.. And to be honoust, I thought you were pretty much against using js inside drupal-core. But, maybe I am wrong? Yes, you are. Being against JS because it is JS is plain stupid. When we can guarantee good downgradable JS, there is no problem.
ON the HIG meetings we discussed this collapse thing. There are quite some examples and mockups made already for this. We discussed this to solve the issues: * Too much clutter on the forms * Wildgrowth of tabs * have something wizard-alike (a user will start at the top collapse, and slowly proceed down) Regards, Bèr -- [ Bèr Kessels | Drupal services www.webschuur.com ]
On Apr 12, 2005 2:03 AM, Dries Buytaert <dries@buytaert.net> wrote:
1. From what I have seen, a taxonomy-based permission scheme is more popular than one using node types. If you aim to get this module included in core, it is worth discussing the idea of using the combination of roles and taxonomy terms, rather than the combination of roles and node types. We should aim to include the most popular scheme in core.
taxonomy_access has been the only module where it is effective to control access to large sections of content -- this does not mean it is best/popular, it just means that it was the one that solved problems for people the easiest. It means that you MUST apply taxonomy to items to control permission -- for building static sites where you would use book outlines to organize content, this doesn't work at all. I think that I would rather see a taxonomy-focused and a roles-focused access, and have them duke it out during live 4.6 development. I'm not convinced that one module could do both well. But feel free to prove me wrong by coding up a really killer implementation :P And of course, I've been loving the groups module, which handles access to content really nicely, but whose goal isn't really permissions around individual nodes.
2. Using a tab is OK for now, but ideally this would be part of the new node submission form.
Agreed, this should be able to be done at node edit time. I understand where chx is going with the tab-based approached, and I really like it for a certain style of community site. You might even have a tab that says "request access" -- e.g. if you want to help edit a page. -- Boris Mann http://www.bryght.com
That's great, Karoly! I've needed something like this for a long time. -- Chris Johnson irc: cxj
participants (7)
-
Boris Mann -
Bèr Kessels -
Chris Johnson -
Dries Buytaert -
Karoly Negyesi -
Robert Douglass -
Stefan Nagtegaal