[XAR entry type] What about Mail.MailConfig

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[XAR entry type] What about Mail.MailConfig

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
Hi xwikiers,

Denis expressed to me some concerns about the type that should be
associated to Mail.MailConfig since it contains configuration data.

One important issue I see if that this page is primarily an admin
configuration UI which happen to also contains configuration data
(would have been much cleaner to store the data in a generated
document...) so I think the best for now is to keep the default type.
Since you are not supposed to go trough edit more to modify those
configuration data, the edit protection should not really affect users
in practice (no warning when using admin UI).

WDYT ?

--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [XAR entry type] What about Mail.MailConfig

vmassol
Administrator
Hi,

> On 9 May 2018, at 15:46, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi xwikiers,
>
> Denis expressed to me some concerns about the type that should be
> associated to Mail.MailConfig since it contains configuration data.
>
> One important issue I see if that this page is primarily an admin
> configuration UI

I don’t understand this sentence. MailConfig is not an UI and it doesn’t contain configuration for UI. It contains config for the mail server, mail properties, etc. It contains mail configuration data. Not related to UI.

> which happen to also contains configuration data
> (would have been much cleaner to store the data in a generated
> document…)

Same, could you explain this more?

> so I think the best for now is to keep the default type.
> Since you are not supposed to go trough edit more to modify those
> configuration data, the edit protection should not really affect users
> in practice (no warning when using admin UI).

We happen to have some Admin UI  that changes the MailConfig page so I’m fine to use ‘default’ (i.e. to warn the users when they try to edit it).

The important aspect is that we don’t try to merge it when the admin upgrades the wiki and there’s been changes brought to it (through the Admin UI), and I believe “default” will achieve this.

Now we might have other *Config pages for which we’re currently lacking an Admin UI till we provide such a UI, we’ll need to mark those as “demo” for now.

So ok for me for MailConfig (if I understood correctly).

Thanks
-Vincent

>
> WDYT ?
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [XAR entry type] What about Mail.MailConfig

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> On 9 May 2018, at 15:46, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi xwikiers,
>>
>> Denis expressed to me some concerns about the type that should be
>> associated to Mail.MailConfig since it contains configuration data.
>>
>> One important issue I see if that this page is primarily an admin
>> configuration UI
>
> I don’t understand this sentence. MailConfig is not an UI and it doesn’t contain configuration for UI. It contains config for the mail server, mail properties, etc. It contains mail configuration data. Not related to UI.

MailConfig is the entry point used by admin UI to get the UI related
to mail configuration (indicated by several XWiki.ConfigurableClass
objects) so it is a UI element itself.

>
>> which happen to also contains configuration data
>> (would have been much cleaner to store the data in a generated
>> document…)
>
> Same, could you explain this more?
>
>> so I think the best for now is to keep the default type.
>> Since you are not supposed to go trough edit more to modify those
>> configuration data, the edit protection should not really affect users
>> in practice (no warning when using admin UI).
>
> We happen to have some Admin UI  that changes the MailConfig page so I’m fine to use ‘default’ (i.e. to warn the users when they try to edit it).
>
> The important aspect is that we don’t try to merge it when the admin upgrades the wiki and there’s been changes brought to it (through the Admin UI), and I believe “default” will achieve this.
>
> Now we might have other *Config pages for which we’re currently lacking an Admin UI till we provide such a UI, we’ll need to mark those as “demo” for now.
>
> So ok for me for MailConfig (if I understood correctly).
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>



--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [XAR entry type] What about Mail.MailConfig

vmassol
Administrator


> On 9 May 2018, at 16:00, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 9 May 2018, at 15:46, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi xwikiers,
>>>
>>> Denis expressed to me some concerns about the type that should be
>>> associated to Mail.MailConfig since it contains configuration data.
>>>
>>> One important issue I see if that this page is primarily an admin
>>> configuration UI
>>
>> I don’t understand this sentence. MailConfig is not an UI and it doesn’t contain configuration for UI. It contains config for the mail server, mail properties, etc. It contains mail configuration data. Not related to UI.
>
> MailConfig is the entry point used by admin UI to get the UI related
> to mail configuration (indicated by several XWiki.ConfigurableClass
> objects) so it is a UI element itself.

Ok I understand now what you mean. Indeed we could have had another page for holding the ConfigurableClass and thus separate the UI aspects from the data aspects.

Thanks
-Vincent

>
>>
>>> which happen to also contains configuration data
>>> (would have been much cleaner to store the data in a generated
>>> document…)
>>
>> Same, could you explain this more?
>>
>>> so I think the best for now is to keep the default type.
>>> Since you are not supposed to go trough edit more to modify those
>>> configuration data, the edit protection should not really affect users
>>> in practice (no warning when using admin UI).
>>
>> We happen to have some Admin UI  that changes the MailConfig page so I’m fine to use ‘default’ (i.e. to warn the users when they try to edit it).
>>
>> The important aspect is that we don’t try to merge it when the admin upgrades the wiki and there’s been changes brought to it (through the Admin UI), and I believe “default” will achieve this.
>>
>> Now we might have other *Config pages for which we’re currently lacking an Admin UI till we provide such a UI, we’ll need to mark those as “demo” for now.
>>
>> So ok for me for MailConfig (if I understood correctly).
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>>
>>> WDYT ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [XAR entry type] What about Mail.MailConfig

Eduard Moraru
In reply to this post by vmassol
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > On 9 May 2018, at 15:46, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi xwikiers,
> >
> > Denis expressed to me some concerns about the type that should be
> > associated to Mail.MailConfig since it contains configuration data.
> >
> > One important issue I see if that this page is primarily an admin
> > configuration UI
>
> I don’t understand this sentence. MailConfig is not an UI and it doesn’t
> contain configuration for UI. It contains config for the mail server, mail
> properties, etc. It contains mail configuration data. Not related to UI.
>
> > which happen to also contains configuration data
> > (would have been much cleaner to store the data in a generated
> > document…)
>
> Same, could you explain this more?
>
> > so I think the best for now is to keep the default type.
> > Since you are not supposed to go trough edit more to modify those
> > configuration data, the edit protection should not really affect users
> > in practice (no warning when using admin UI).
>
> We happen to have some Admin UI  that changes the MailConfig page so I’m
> fine to use ‘default’ (i.e. to warn the users when they try to edit it).
>
> The important aspect is that we don’t try to merge it when the admin
> upgrades the wiki and there’s been changes brought to it (through the Admin
> UI), and I believe “default” will achieve this.
>

Note that on the merge side, the purpose of "default" is to explicitly
merge any updates.

"default: used to force the default. Edit and delete are not allowed and a
3-way merge is applied to the document during upgrades."

Perhaps a more appropriate type for this page would be:

"configuration: a document containing configuration. Edit is allowed and
the document is never upgraded."

...since, after all, the main purpose of Mail.MailConfig is to be a
configuration page, with some stray (and rather static, i.e. don't change
often) UI elements in it (ConfigurationClass) that need to be extracted to
a different page (and *that* page will be set to type "default").


>
> Now we might have other *Config pages for which we’re currently lacking an
> Admin UI till we provide such a UI, we’ll need to mark those as “demo” for
> now.
>

Same here... semantically, those are "configuration" pages as well.



Side note: Now, I notice a weird thing in the definition of the
"configuration" type:

"Edit is allowed <note for Vincent: delete is disallowed. We should write
this explicitly to clarify> and the document is never upgraded."

...and I kind of understand why Vincent might have suggested "demo", which
says:

"Edit and delete are allowed and the document is upgraded only if it's not
been customized."

...which is something that should, IMO, apply to "configuration" types as
well, since it would make sense to keep using the default configuration
values of an application (whichever those are and however they evolve
across time), until we start customizing them.

i.e. "configuration" should be: allow edit, disallow delete and only
upgrade if there were no changes.

WDYT?



Side note2: Just a quick reminder that for configuration, in the best case
scenario (where we have no mixing of code with configuration data), the
default actions should be to merge, like all the other package managers out
there.

Thanks,
Eduard


>
> So ok for me for MailConfig (if I understood correctly).
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Mortagne
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [XAR entry type] What about Mail.MailConfig

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Eduard Moraru <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > On 9 May 2018, at 15:46, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi xwikiers,
>> >
>> > Denis expressed to me some concerns about the type that should be
>> > associated to Mail.MailConfig since it contains configuration data.
>> >
>> > One important issue I see if that this page is primarily an admin
>> > configuration UI
>>
>> I don’t understand this sentence. MailConfig is not an UI and it doesn’t
>> contain configuration for UI. It contains config for the mail server, mail
>> properties, etc. It contains mail configuration data. Not related to UI.
>>
>> > which happen to also contains configuration data
>> > (would have been much cleaner to store the data in a generated
>> > document…)
>>
>> Same, could you explain this more?
>>
>> > so I think the best for now is to keep the default type.
>> > Since you are not supposed to go trough edit more to modify those
>> > configuration data, the edit protection should not really affect users
>> > in practice (no warning when using admin UI).
>>
>> We happen to have some Admin UI  that changes the MailConfig page so I’m
>> fine to use ‘default’ (i.e. to warn the users when they try to edit it).
>>
>> The important aspect is that we don’t try to merge it when the admin
>> upgrades the wiki and there’s been changes brought to it (through the Admin
>> UI), and I believe “default” will achieve this.
>>
>
> Note that on the merge side, the purpose of "default" is to explicitly
> merge any updates.
>
> "default: used to force the default. Edit and delete are not allowed and a
> 3-way merge is applied to the document during upgrades."
>
> Perhaps a more appropriate type for this page would be:
>
> "configuration: a document containing configuration. Edit is allowed and
> the document is never upgraded."
>
> ...since, after all, the main purpose of Mail.MailConfig is to be a
> configuration page, with some stray (and rather static, i.e. don't change
> often) UI elements in it (ConfigurationClass) that need to be extracted to
> a different page (and *that* page will be set to type "default").
>
>
>>
>> Now we might have other *Config pages for which we’re currently lacking an
>> Admin UI till we provide such a UI, we’ll need to mark those as “demo” for
>> now.
>>
>
> Same here... semantically, those are "configuration" pages as well.
>
>
>
> Side note: Now, I notice a weird thing in the definition of the
> "configuration" type:
>
> "Edit is allowed <note for Vincent: delete is disallowed. We should write
> this explicitly to clarify> and the document is never upgraded."
>
> ...and I kind of understand why Vincent might have suggested "demo", which
> says:
>
> "Edit and delete are allowed and the document is upgraded only if it's not
> been customized."
>
> ...which is something that should, IMO, apply to "configuration" types as
> well, since it would make sense to keep using the default configuration
> values of an application (whichever those are and however they evolve
> across time), until we start customizing them.
>
> i.e. "configuration" should be: allow edit, disallow delete and only
> upgrade if there were no changes.
>
> WDYT?

We already discussed this in another mail and the rational is to not
change the behavior controlled by configuration when you upgrade
(other than the possible WTF effect it could also be very dangerous in
case of configuration involving things like rights). When you don't
modify the configuration it usually means you are OK with the
configuration, but you might not be OK at all with a new default
configuration. On dev side it also gives you the liberty to change the
default configuration drastically without the fear to break anyone
during upgrade because it will apply only for new installs. If you
want to move to the new default it's still possible either by using
some factory reset button if provided or use the history.

>
>
>
> Side note2: Just a quick reminder that for configuration, in the best case
> scenario (where we have no mixing of code with configuration data), the
> default actions should be to merge

> like all the other package managers outthere.

Actually the default in dpkg (Debian) is to not touch the
configuration. You just get warning in interactive mode that you have
a conflict and you have the possibility to replace your customized
configuration file with the new default instead. No merge in default
system, not even as an option (we are bypassing standard configuration
file handling in XWiki package to get 3 ways merge support).

>
> Thanks,
> Eduard
>
>
>>
>> So ok for me for MailConfig (if I understood correctly).
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>> >
>> > WDYT ?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thomas Mortagne
>>
>>



--
Thomas Mortagne