• OpenCore Dev

  • People as projects

    from ianb on 2007-12-05 16:45 
    So, Nick mentioned more stuff attached to personal pages/users.  I think 
we talked about this here and there, but not very specifically.

I think the easiest way to do this would be something akin to treating 
/people/NAME like we treat /project/NAME.  We add an X-Openplans-Person 
header already.  We don't dispatch things like /people/NAME/blog, etc, 
but that would be a fairly small change (to openplans_hooks.py).

Internally, I think we could treat people a lot like projects, maybe 
with a little name mangling.  E.g., person NAME is project 
"NAME.person".  For stuff like TaskTracker and WordPress this seems most 
expedient (WordPress just keys blogs off strings anyway, it's just 
another kind of string).

 From there I guess we need a concept of featurelets on people.  This 
doesn't sound like it's too hard.  So long as we don't have to rethink 
every other piece of integration, which we shouldn't need to do as long 
as people and projects keep the same general shape.

-- 
Ian Bicking : ianb@...
    Thread Outline:

  • Re: People as projects

    from k0s on 2007-12-05 16:52 
    On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 03:45:18PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
> So, Nick mentioned more stuff attached to personal pages/users.  I think we 
> talked about this here and there, but not very specifically.
>
> I think the easiest way to do this would be something akin to treating 
> /people/NAME like we treat /project/NAME.  We add an X-Openplans-Person 
> header already.  We don't dispatch things like /people/NAME/blog, etc, but 
> that would be a fairly small change (to openplans_hooks.py).
>
> Internally, I think we could treat people a lot like projects, maybe with a 
> little name mangling.  E.g., person NAME is project "NAME.person".  For 
> stuff like TaskTracker and WordPress this seems most expedient (WordPress 
> just keys blogs off strings anyway, it's just another kind of string).
>
> From there I guess we need a concept of featurelets on people.  This 
> doesn't sound like it's too hard.  So long as we don't have to rethink 
> every other piece of integration, which we shouldn't need to do as long as 
> people and projects keep the same general shape.

I agree that this looks like the easiest way forward right now. 

Jeff

  • Re: People as projects

    from ra on 2007-12-05 16:59 
    Ian Bicking wrote:
> So, Nick mentioned more stuff attached to personal pages/users.  I think 
> we talked about this here and there, but not very specifically.
> 
> I think the easiest way to do this would be something akin to treating 
> /people/NAME like we treat /project/NAME.  We add an X-Openplans-Person 
> header already.  We don't dispatch things like /people/NAME/blog, etc, 
> but that would be a fairly small change (to openplans_hooks.py).
> 
> Internally, I think we could treat people a lot like projects, maybe 
> with a little name mangling.  E.g., person NAME is project 
> "NAME.person".  For stuff like TaskTracker and WordPress this seems most 
> expedient (WordPress just keys blogs off strings anyway, it's just 
> another kind of string).
> 
>  From there I guess we need a concept of featurelets on people.  This 
> doesn't sound like it's too hard.

almost trivial, really.

> So long as we don't have to rethink 
> every other piece of integration, which we shouldn't need to do as long 
> as people and projects keep the same general shape.

no rethinking needed; from the beginning i imagined that a person's folder 
would be a project of sorts, it's just a matter of wiring it up to do so.

-r

    • Re: People as projects

      from whit on 2007-12-05 20:23 
      we might consider better ids to identify projects and people to communicate
between apps.

both projects and people already have uids associated with them, it would
avoid certain problems by using them.  Currently I'm thinking of project
deletion or incomplete project creation where lingering instances of the id
create issue when someone tries to use that id again.

-w

      • Re: People as projects

        from k0s on 2007-12-06 09:46 
        On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 08:23:54PM -0500, whit wrote:
>    we might consider better ids to identify projects and people to
>    communicate between apps.
> 
>    both projects and people already have uids associated with them, it would
>    avoid certain problems by using them.  Currently I'm thinking of project
>    deletion or incomplete project creation where lingering instances of the
>    id create issue when someone tries to use that id again.
> 
>    -w

+1 to that.  I don't necessarily have strong opinions on using the
current UID (though why shouldn't we?) but having a unified UID across
apps sounds like a good plan.

Jeff

P.S. I'm tempted to say more about solidifying our intra-app
communication protocol(s) but not only is it off-topic, but I don't
really know what to say except "we should work on this".

      • Re: People as projects

        from novalis on 2007-12-06 10:27 
        On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:23 -0500, whit wrote:
> we might consider better ids to identify projects and people to
> communicate between apps.  
> 
> both projects and people already have uids associated with them, it
> would avoid certain problems by using them.  Currently I'm thinking of
> project deletion or incomplete project creation where lingering
> instances of the id create issue when someone tries to use that id
> again. 

What kind of UID?

Do you mean a random number?  If so, I'm -1 on that.  

Random numbers are really nice inside a monolithic system, because you
can always resolve them back to what they refer to.  But in a
distributed system, it can be a hassle to figure out why you're seeing
152352-134214-412 when you expect 912334-613412-678.  I would rather see
URLs as ids, since they're still unique, but they're easy to understand.

        • Re: People as projects

          from whit on 2007-12-06 10:36 
          On Dec 6, 2007 9:28 AM, David Turner <novalis@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:23 -0500, whit wrote:
> > we might consider better ids to identify projects and people to
> > communicate between apps.
> >
> > both projects and people already have uids associated with them, it
> > would avoid certain problems by using them.  Currently I'm thinking of
> > project deletion or incomplete project creation where lingering
> > instances of the id create issue when someone tries to use that id
> > again.
>
> What kind of UID?
>
> Do you mean a random number?  If so, I'm -1 on that.
>
> Random numbers are really nice inside a monolithic system, because you
> can always resolve them back to what they refer to.  But in a
> distributed system, it can be a hassle to figure out why you're seeing
> 152352-134214-412 when you expect 912334-613412-678.  I would rather see
> URLs as ids, since they're still unique, but they're easy to understand.
>

urls are not unique in time (ala the scenario I suggested initially). iow,
they can be filled by in.

readability definitely does matter, but for CRUD operations, I would put
avoiding collisions over readable ids.

-w



>
>
>
> --
> Archive:
> http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/lists/opencore-dev/archive/2007/12/1196954846229
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
> opencore-dev@....  Please contact
> opencore-dev-manager@... for questions.
>
>


-- 

| david "whit" morriss
|
| contact :: http://public.xdi.org/=whit

"If you don't know where you are,
 you don't know anything at all"

 Dr. Edgar Spencer, Ph.D., 1995


"I like to write code like
other ppl like to tune their
cars or 10kW hifi equipment..."

Christian Heimes, 2004

          • Re: People as projects

            from nickyg on 2007-12-06 10:41 
            dwinslow wrote a very good blog post about this which deserves a  
read: http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/blog/2007/12/05/ 
openplans-related-rambling/

Nick

On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:36 AM, whit wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 6, 2007 9:28 AM, David Turner <novalis@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:23 -0500, whit wrote:
> > we might consider better ids to identify projects and people to
> > communicate between apps.
> >
> > both projects and people already have uids associated with them, it
> > would avoid certain problems by using them.  Currently I'm  
> thinking of
> > project deletion or incomplete project creation where lingering
> > instances of the id create issue when someone tries to use that id
> > again.
>
> What kind of UID?
>
> Do you mean a random number?  If so, I'm -1 on that.
>
> Random numbers are really nice inside a monolithic system, because you
> can always resolve them back to what they refer to.  But in a
> distributed system, it can be a hassle to figure out why you're seeing
> 152352-134214-412 when you expect 912334-613412-678.  I would  
> rather see
> URLs as ids, since they're still unique, but they're easy to  
> understand.
>
> urls are not unique in time (ala the scenario I suggested  
> initially). iow, they can be filled by in.
>
> readability definitely does matter, but for CRUD operations, I  
> would put avoiding collisions over readable ids.
>
> -w
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Archive: http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/lists/opencore- 
> dev/archive/2007/12/1196954846229
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to opencore- 
> dev@....  Please contact opencore-dev- 
> manager@... for questions.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> | david "whit" morriss
> |
> | contact :: http://public.xdi.org/=whit
>
> "If you don't know where you are,
>  you don't know anything at all"
>
>  Dr. Edgar Spencer, Ph.D., 1995
>
>
> "I like to write code like
> other ppl like to tune their
> cars or 10kW hifi equipment..."
>
> Christian Heimes, 2004
> !DSPAM:4028,4758178c143582092453641!

--
Nick Grossman
The Open Planning Project -- topp.openplans.org
nickyg@...
(917) 825-6590

        • Re: People as projects

          from ianb on 2007-12-06 12:30 
          David Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:23 -0500, whit wrote:
>> we might consider better ids to identify projects and people to
>> communicate between apps.  
>>
>> both projects and people already have uids associated with them, it
>> would avoid certain problems by using them.  Currently I'm thinking of
>> project deletion or incomplete project creation where lingering
>> instances of the id create issue when someone tries to use that id
>> again. 
> 
> What kind of UID?
> 
> Do you mean a random number?  If so, I'm -1 on that.  
> 
> Random numbers are really nice inside a monolithic system, because you
> can always resolve them back to what they refer to.  But in a
> distributed system, it can be a hassle to figure out why you're seeing
> 152352-134214-412 when you expect 912334-613412-678.  I would rather see
> URLs as ids, since they're still unique, but they're easy to understand.

There's a middle ground where we use a stable id like username-434839. 
It's both readable and unique over time.


-- 
Ian Bicking : ianb@...

          • Re: People as projects

            from whit on 2007-12-06 12:34 
            that would work

-w

On Dec 6, 2007 11:30 AM, Ian Bicking <ianb@...> wrote:

> David Turner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:23 -0500, whit wrote:
> >> we might consider better ids to identify projects and people to
> >> communicate between apps.
> >>
> >> both projects and people already have uids associated with them, it
> >> would avoid certain problems by using them.  Currently I'm thinking of
> >> project deletion or incomplete project creation where lingering
> >> instances of the id create issue when someone tries to use that id
> >> again.
> >
> > What kind of UID?
> >
> > Do you mean a random number?  If so, I'm -1 on that.
> >
> > Random numbers are really nice inside a monolithic system, because you
> > can always resolve them back to what they refer to.  But in a
> > distributed system, it can be a hassle to figure out why you're seeing
> > 152352-134214-412 when you expect 912334-613412-678.  I would rather see
> > URLs as ids, since they're still unique, but they're easy to understand.
>
> There's a middle ground where we use a stable id like username-434839.
> It's both readable and unique over time.
>
>
> --
> Ian Bicking : ianb@...
>
>
> --
> Archive:
> http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/lists/opencore-dev/archive/2007/12/1196962238625
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
> opencore-dev@....  Please contact
> opencore-dev-manager@... for questions.
>
>


-- 

| david "whit" morriss
|
| contact :: http://public.xdi.org/=whit

"If you don't know where you are,
 you don't know anything at all"

 Dr. Edgar Spencer, Ph.D., 1995


"I like to write code like
other ppl like to tune their
cars or 10kW hifi equipment..."

Christian Heimes, 2004

          • Re: People as projects

            from slinkp on 2007-12-06 12:38 
            On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:30:32AM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
> There's a middle ground where we use a stable id like username-434839. It's 
> both readable and unique over time.

At RHG we used URNs for stuff like that.
eg.
urn:x-topp-username:12345


-- 

Paul Winkler
http://www.openplans.org/people/slinkp/profile
yahoo: slinkp23
AIM:   slinkp1970
Return to conversation view