[development] reverse selection of node types is clumsy

Larry Garfield larry at garfieldtech.com
Sat Mar 8 20:15:14 UTC 2008

On Saturday 08 March 2008, Derek Wright wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Dave Fletcher wrote:
> > Abolishing inverse selections altogether is preferable, but not
> > very enforcible in third party modules.
> <advocate class="devil">
> Consider the case of OG, where you're using it to restrict access to
> data on your site.  It's a pain (and potential security problem) in
> the other direction, if you have to remember to privacy-enable all
> new content types as you add them, instead of having everything
> private by default until you exclude it from the privacy system.
> </advocate>
> Granted, this is a somewhat obscure case, and it's probably best to
> optimize the UI for the common case. But, this is probably what Moshe
> was thinking when he set it up like this in the first place.  Food
> for thought...
> -Derek (dww)

That's true if you want to build an entirely-OG site.  If you want to 
OG-enable just part of your site, for selected node types, then it becomes a 
liability, not a feature.

I can't speak for Moshe or what was going through his head when, but I'd love 
to see OG's permission interface be opt-in.  I've watched new colleagues of 
mine get confused by it on their first OG project, as it is essentially a 

(Not to pick on OG here; it's just OG and Comment are the two most obvious 
examples I know of.)

Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
larry at garfieldtech.com		ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of 
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, 
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to 
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession 
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."  -- Thomas 

More information about the development mailing list