nickless left at 00:42 (Ping timeout: 252 seconds
jvdrean left at 00:49 (Quit: Leaving.
mflorea joined #xwiki at 07:16
Denis joined #xwiki at 07:54
plunden1 joined #xwiki at 08:10
kibahop joined #xwiki at 08:20
mflorea left at 08:36 (Ping timeout: 276 seconds
lucaa joined #xwiki at 09:09
gvallarelli joined #xwiki at 09:11
gvallarelli - (09:11): Hi
Enygma` joined #xwiki at 09:17
evalica joined #xwiki at 09:32
tmortagne joined #xwiki at 09:46
arkub joined #xwiki at 09:49
SvenDowideit left at 09:49 (Ping timeout: 246 seconds
sdumitriu joined #xwiki at 09:50
SvenDowideit joined #xwiki at 09:50
jvdrean joined #xwiki at 09:55
SvenDowideit left at 09:58 (Ping timeout: 246 seconds
SvenDowideit joined #xwiki at 09:58
SvenDowideit left at 10:05 (Ping timeout: 246 seconds
SvenDowideit joined #xwiki at 10:05
nickless joined #xwiki at 10:16
mflorea joined #xwiki at 10:23
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 10:32
arkub left at 10:35 (Ping timeout: 258 seconds
arkub joined #xwiki at 10:48
Ciprian joined #xwiki at 10:54
KermitTheFragger joined #xwiki at 11:07
jvdrean left at 11:09 (Quit: Leaving.
jvdrean joined #xwiki at 11:11
anamarias joined #xwiki at 11:23
jvdrean - (11:34): [release] starting core 2.3 release
kibahop left #xwiki at 11:34
nickless left at 11:35 (Read error: Operation timed out
jvdrean - (11:52): @all please look for missing stuff in http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ReleaseNotesXWikiEnterprise23
jvdrean left at 12:13 (Quit: Leaving.
flaviusolaru joined #xwiki at 12:15
jvelociter_ joined #xwiki at 12:16
jvelociter left at 12:16 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter_ is now known as jvelociter ([email protected]
jvelociter_ joined #xwiki at 12:20
jvelociter left at 12:20 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter_ is now known as jvelociter ([email protected]
jvelociter left at 12:24 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 12:25
mariusbutuc joined #xwiki at 12:28
jvelociter left at 12:28 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 12:29
jvelociter left at 12:33 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 12:33
jvelociter left at 12:37 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 12:37
jvelociter_ joined #xwiki at 12:41
jvelociter left at 12:41 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter_ is now known as jvelociter ([email protected]
jvelociter_ joined #xwiki at 12:46
jvelociter left at 12:46 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter_ is now known as jvelociter ([email protected]
jvelociter left at 12:50 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 12:50
jvelociter_ joined #xwiki at 12:54
jvelociter left at 12:54 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter_ is now known as jvelociter ([email protected]
jvelociter left at 12:58 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 12:59
nickless joined #xwiki at 13:01
jvelociter_ joined #xwiki at 13:02
jvelociter left at 13:02 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
jvelociter_ is now known as jvelociter ([email protected]
florinciu joined #xwiki at 13:32
kibaho1 joined #xwiki at 13:48
jvdrean joined #xwiki at 13:48
florinciu left at 14:09 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
florinciu joined #xwiki at 14:11
kibaho1 left #xwiki at 14:22
tmortagne - (14:33): CalebJamesDeLisl: there is no way to use ConfigurableClass just to have some custom content included in admin UI section but without the form around it the whole section ? what i want to add is not only about setting some value in a xobject
tmortagne - (14:34): we should have a system more generic than ConfigurableClass just with the dynamically register some admin UI section part
Enygma` left at 15:06 (Quit: Leaving.
plunden1 left #xwiki at 15:10
jvdrean - (15:21): I'll restart myxwiki.org in 2min after the 2.3 upgrade
jvdrean - (15:25): done
florinciu left at 16:05 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
florinciu joined #xwiki at 16:10
mariusbutuc left at 16:23 (Quit: Leaving.
Denis - (16:24): jvelociter: XE-539 do not affect 2.3 and 2.4 ?
jvelociter - (16:24): Denis: it does
jvelociter - (16:25): updated
jvelociter - (16:25): (and removed fix fersion)
Denis - (16:28): thanks
Denis - (16:34): sdumitriu: XWIKI-1962, why it is marked fix for  2.2.6, it seems so old and not fixed even in 2.3, no ?
sdumitriu - (16:43): It's one of those issues that gets passed from each version to the next, without getting fixed
sdumitriu - (16:43): I need to find some time to debug it
sdumitriu - (16:43): You can remove 2.2.6 from it
Denis - (16:44): should I add 2.3.1 ?
sdumitriu - (16:44): Put it on 2.4M1
sdumitriu - (16:44): only
Denis - (16:44): ok
sdumitriu - (16:44): If it gets fixed, I'll merge if necessary
Enygma` joined #xwiki at 16:53
evalica left at 17:00 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
nickless left at 17:13 (Ping timeout: 248 seconds
Enygma` left at 17:28 (Quit: Leaving.
sdumitriu left at 17:41 (*.net *.split
plunden left at 17:41 (*.net *.split
sdumitriu joined #xwiki at 17:42
plunden joined #xwiki at 17:42
flaviusolaru left at 17:56 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
florinciu left at 18:08 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
florinciu joined #xwiki at 18:09
Ciprian left #xwiki at 18:18
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:25): tmortagne: Yes you can put some custom content without a form, all you need to do is define codeToExecute but not set a class name.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:25): See the annotations application.
tmortagne - (18:27): CalebJamesDeLisl: problem is that it looks like the content of the codeToExecute is executed inline
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:27): Inline?
tmortagne - (18:27): when i have
tmortagne - (18:27): = some header =
tmortagne - (18:27): i codeToExecute i get a <h1> inside a <p>
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:28): I have been facing that problem with html macros.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:29): Is there a way to make a macro not be inside of a <p> block?
tmortagne - (18:29): that mean that codeToExecute content is inserted in some inline macro or something, i did not looked how its used
tmortagne - (18:29): CalebJamesDeLisl: a macro is either standalone or inline, if you don't want it to be inline then put it alone and donne in nother paragraph
tmortagne - (18:30): s/donne/not/
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:30): So if I put \n above and below then it should not be inside of the <p>?
tmortagne - (18:30): alone means that nothing is just before/after the macro
tmortagne - (18:31): another way to say it is that it should visually be alone
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:31): If that macro is still inline then that's something I have to fix.
tmortagne - (18:31): text
tmortagne - (18:31): {{standalone}}
tmortagne - (18:31): text
tmortagne - (18:31): ra
tmortagne - (18:31): don(t look at it
tmortagne - (18:31): pidgin remve empty line
tmortagne - (18:32): CalebJamesDeLisl: http://pastebin.com/fFqTbMu2
tmortagne - (18:33): http://pastebin.com/7qDhB1Ax
arkub left at 18:33 (Ping timeout: 258 seconds
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:34): I'll take a look at it later. It should definitely be standalone.
nickless joined #xwiki at 18:35
annacondan joined #xwiki at 18:37
florinciu left at 18:38 (Quit: Leaving.
mflorea left at 18:40 (Quit: Leaving.
tmortagne - (18:44): CalebJamesDeLisl: is there something i can include to have the normal configurable UI (list of fields) in my custom UI ?
tmortagne - (18:44): i need some custom UI before and after
tmortagne - (18:49): CalebJamesDeLisl: it's ok, I found your comment in ConfigurableClass document content
tmortagne - (18:52): hmm there is maybe more than what i need actually
tmortagne - (18:57): no it's ok, sorry for the noise
tmortagne - (19:02): CalebJamesDeLisl: i can take care of fixing the standalone/inline bug Wednesday (i have to go and i will not have time tomorrow) since i need it anyway
gvallarelli - (19:04): got to go goodbye
gvallarelli left #xwiki at 19:04
KermitTheFragger left at 19:07 (Quit: Leaving
tmortagne - (19:07): CalebJamesDeLisl: http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XAADMINISTRATION-135
tmortagne - (19:07): have to go, bye
tmortagne left at 19:07 (Quit: Leaving.
jvelociter - (19:26): I all. I made a patch to have the feed plugin in core create feed entries document in syntax 2.0 by default (with xwiki.cfg options for backward compatibility support / custom syntax and/or content support)
jvelociter - (19:26): XWIKI-5142
jvelociter - (19:27): I'd like to commit it in 2.3 branch and trunk, if everyone is OK with that. Let me know what you think
sdumitriu - (19:33): Is it needed on 2.3? Since it's not a bugfix, I'd rather have it on 2.4 only
sdumitriu - (19:33): But if it's wanted for a client, OK
jvelociter - (19:33): it's not absolutely needed. I'd just prefer to have it in 2.3 (since by default nothing in XWiki uses the feed plugin, I think it's acceptable)
jvelociter - (19:34): but it's ok to have it only in 2.4
sdumitriu - (19:41): jvelociter: Shouldn't the plugin take into consideration the configured default syntax?
jvelociter - (19:42): sdumitriu: instead of syntax 2.0 ?
sdumitriu - (19:42): Yes
sdumitriu - (19:42): Something like:
sdumitriu - (19:42):             if (!getDefaultDocumentSyntax().equals(XWikiDocument.XWIKI10_SYNTAXID)) {
sdumitriu - (19:42):                 content = "{{include document=\"XWiki.XWikiUserSheet\"/}}";
sdumitriu - (19:42):                 syntaxId = XWikiDocument.XWIKI20_SYNTAXID;
sdumitriu - (19:42):             } else {
sdumitriu - (19:42):                 content = "#includeForm(\"XWiki.XWikiUserSheet\")";
sdumitriu - (19:42):                 syntaxId = XWikiDocument.XWIKI10_SYNTAXID;
sdumitriu - (19:42):             }
sdumitriu - (19:42): That is c.x.x.XWiki.getDefaultDocumentSyntax
jvelociter - (19:42): ok, I see
jvelociter - (19:43): but I still think the param config is needed
jvelociter - (19:43): in case you have XWiki watch installed on your XE, and you don't want to have the whole XE default on syntax 1.0
jvelociter - (19:44): (just the watch docs)
sdumitriu - (19:44): Were "xwiki.plugins.feed.entryContent" and "xwiki.plugins.feed.entrySyntaxId" present before, or are these new?
jvelociter - (19:44): they are new
sdumitriu - (19:44): K
sdumitriu - (19:45): So, if these new settings are defined, use them, otherwise do the usual check (the one I mentioned)
sdumitriu - (19:45): WDYT?
jvelociter - (19:45): yes
jvelociter - (19:45): sounds good
jvdrean left at 19:46 (Quit: Leaving.
venkatesh joined #xwiki at 19:52
sdumitriu - (20:02): Q for XWIKI-5143: How ugly is it to hardcode XWiki.AccountValidation in XWiki.checkAccess?
sdumitriu - (20:02): jvelociter, CalebJamesDeLisl, Denis
jvelociter - (20:03): (uploaded a new patch for the feed thing)
jvelociter - (20:04): sdumitriu that's pretty bad :D
jvelociter - (20:05): can't we say it's a core feature of XWiki and it should not be in an application ?
jvelociter - (20:05): but in templates instead
sdumitriu - (20:05): I know three nice solutions, but they require some more work than this easy way out
sdumitriu - (20:05): It fails even in templates
sdumitriu - (20:06): It's the /action/ that's forbidden, and at the moment only /register/ is allowed
jvelociter - (20:07): I see
sdumitriu - (20:10): http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-5143?focusedCommentId=51158#action_51158
sdumitriu - (20:10): These are the four options
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:12): I don't like core stuff referencing templates or pages. However if it must be done, I think it's best to have a configuration parameter specify the page.
sdumitriu - (20:13): jvelociter: New patch looks good
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:13): I think the best thing to do in such a case is to have the page somehow register itself with checkAccess.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:15): If a wiki is closed can't a page still explicitly allow XWikiGuest view access?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:16): Never mind...
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:23): I think "prevent unregistered users from viewing..." is a misguided concept (I know this doesn't solve our problem).  When I give Alice authority to view a page, I have implicitly given that authority to anyone who Alice wishes to permit and anyone who they permit.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:25): If Alice wishes to transfer her view authority to Bob she may simply load the page and transfer the content to him.
lucaa left at 20:28 (Quit: Leaving.
sdumitriu - (20:28): We can't prevent active user disclosure
sdumitriu - (20:29): Bob could even look over Alice's shoulder, how could we prevent that :D
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:29): We have to rely on Alice to have her security in order (mirror on the monitor) :D
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:30): So I think the permissions 2.0 system should be look more toward permissions as objects which are passed from user to user.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:31): But for now I would think the best approach is to have a configuration parameter for permissions which are allowed over all else.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:32): Maybe just pages which must be visible to guests.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:34): This actually applies to the invitation application as well.
sdumitriu - (20:36): Yes
Denis - (20:39): sdumitriu: I have comment XWIKI-5143
Denis - (20:41): CalebJamesDeLisl: you should close XWIKI-4755, no ?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:41): Yes. jv said that earlier. Thanks for bugging me about it, I can be forgetful.
sdumitriu - (20:41): Denis: Do you have something working for XWIKI-929?
Denis - (20:44): sdumitriu: no, we work around XWIKI-929 since long by doing ugly test in XWiki class
Denis - (20:45): XWIKI-4378 is part of them
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:47): I'm not a big fan of XWIKI-929 because I worry about permissions creap. What purpose does a register or programming right on a particular document serve?
Denis - (20:49): What I said, is that I prefer not to loose time being nice for fixing those, since the nice thing to do is rewrite the rights system from scratch. We have to thought about it deeply, and have a proper backward compatibility feature as well
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:50): IMO there are 2 permissions: read and write. and three possible settings (allow, deny, and defer) And there should be a cascade/restrict bit to decide of that permit can be overridden.  I also see the point about writing nice code in hacksville.
Denis - (20:53): not sure it is so simple, delete permission is nice to have
Denis - (20:53): and, obviously we will need better handling between content, object, attachement, and so on
Denis - (20:54): and at the same time, it have to be simple
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:54): I beleve the only way to keep the 2.0 database driver from turning into a jungle is to make everything extend a single entity (like object).
Denis - (20:55): so it not simple, and will require a long discussion, and it is not the time for that right now
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:56): Sure, the reason I said that is if there was one object then each thing would be able to be referenced with permissions.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:57): I think I agree with you about delete permission because only delete allows one to actually drop data from the database.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (20:59): But of course programming, register, undelete etc. should not make it to the 2.0 permission manager.
venkatesh left at 21:30 (
annacondan left at 21:36 (Quit: annacondan
mflorea joined #xwiki at 21:42
gvallarelli joined #xwiki at 22:00
gvallarelli - (22:00): good evening
sdumitriu - (22:01): Hi
sdumitriu - (22:01): So, what's the news gvallarelli?
gvallarelli - (22:01): life goes on
gvallarelli - (22:01): that's the news ^^
gvallarelli - (22:02): sdumitriu: like XWiki I'm not selected this year
sdumitriu - (22:02): Well, life goes on, as you said
gvallarelli - (22:02): as you said sdumitriu
sdumitriu - (22:02): Sorry for you, but don't get too depressed over it
gvallarelli - (22:03): sdumitriu: thank you, I can contribute to XWiki
gvallarelli - (22:08): sdumitriu: but I have to organize my time because I will work with a professor for a thesis
gvallarelli - (22:08): but in my spare time I can contribute
jvelociter left at 22:20 (Quit: jvelociter
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 22:21
jvelociter left at 22:21 (Client Quit
gvallarelli - (22:50): got to go
gvallarelli - (22:50): goodnight
gvallarelli left #xwiki at 22:50
jvdrean joined #xwiki at 23:09
anamarias left at 23:28 (Quit: anamarias
mflorea left at 23:39 (Quit: Leaving.
jvdrean left at 23:45 (Quit: Leaving.