CMSMS 2.0 (say what now?!)

Ted · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:54 pm

So the ACLs system will be based around groups to start, and then we can extend it to users later if we feel it's not flexible enough.

Permissions will work hierarchically in the case of pages. So... you can set permissions for all the pages by modifying the permissions for the "root" of the pages tree. You can then go to one of the children and override those permissions. But, the nice thing is, the children of that overridden page will now respect the overridden permissions instead of the "root" permissions. This means that you can lock down certain sections of the hierarchy to various groups.

One of these permissions will be the "View" permission and will affect people on the front end. So, in theory, you should be able to cut off an entire section from public view and only allow people with a login or a particular group to view them.

Again, granting those permissions will be on a group by group basis unless we decide otherwise to add the additional user specific permissions down the road.

Hope that clears up some stuff.

styson · **Joined:** Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:46 pm **Posts:** 56

Ted wrote:

So the ACLs system will be based around groups to start, and then we can extend it to users later if we feel it's not flexible enough.

Permissions will work hierarchically in the case of pages. So... you can set permissions for all the pages by modifying the permissions for the "root" of the pages tree. You can then go to one of the children and override those permissions. But, the nice thing is, the children of that overridden page will now respect the overridden permissions instead of the "root" permissions. This means that you can lock down certain sections of the hierarchy to various groups.

One of these permissions will be the "View" permission and will affect people on the front end. So, in theory, you should be able to cut off an entire section from public view and only allow people with a login or a particular group to view them.

Again, granting those permissions will be on a group by group basis unless we decide otherwise to add the additional user specific permissions down the road.

Hope that clears up some stuff.

Excellent Ted!! That will work out great. Will the security model extend to the code that generates navigation so if I cannot view a page, it is never presented to me in the first place in the nav menus?

Will setting the permissions will be handled as part of the page creation process? Allowing content creators to set what groups have what access to that page.

Are we looking at June/July for this release?

Ted · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:29 am

The security will happen before Menu Manager or other code have a chance to see pages, so yes, navigation will properly reflect.

As for the permissions, it will be part of the add/edit content page.

And June/July is not likely. I'm thinking September is a more realistic timeframe. There is still a lot to do and I haven't touched the code in about 2-3 weeks.

styson · **Joined:** Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:46 pm **Posts:** 56

Thanks again Ted. This change will definantly move CMSms forward.

RonnyK · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2007 5:25 am

One small question, and I have to say that I didn't read ALL 108 previous posts in this topic to check if it was already asked/answered.

Is 2.0 also ensuring that rights given to a person on a specific page and to add pages as well, enabling that person to create pages under the menu anyway he wants.

I'd like to have several people of sportteams to update all content concerning their team. The website will have f.e.

- Home
- General
- Teams
- Team1
- Team2

I'd think that if I give an editor rights on "Team1", he should be able to do what he wants, starting at "Team1" and create any structure he wants UNDER that page.

Ronny

tigercat · **Joined:** Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:48 pm **Posts:** 28

Thank you all for that great job. There are tons of content management systems out there. But I like CMSMS very much. It is easy to understand and simple.

As I have been using CMSMS since over a year now there have grown some wishes ...
- image module: posibility to upload more than one image at the same time
- backup of site content
- barrier free source code (probably this is almost done for CORE and depends on the editor for own CONTENT?)

Question about upates in the future:
1.x --> 2.0: big changes (like announced by Ted). This might cause lots of trouble like update from 0.xx to newer releases 0.xx / 1.xx sometimes caused problems (missing translations / missing icons / incompatibility in modules ...)
So: after restructured CMSMS 2.0 code base there will be solid / stable code base for further changes 2.x, 3.0?

Anastasis · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2007 11:58 pm

tigercat wrote:

- backup of site content

Tigercat

Elijah has recently provided a script to automate a backup of the data. See here:

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... 472.0.html

Hope this helps.

tigercat · **Joined:** Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:48 pm **Posts:** 28

Anastasis wrote:

Elijah has recently provided a script to automate a backup of the data. See here:

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... 472.0.html

Hope this helps.

Sounds good. Thanks. At least I can do this manually with an external script ...

kwurzel · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 8:05 am **Posts:** 9

Is it possible to add support for CSS-server side Constants in Smarty? See http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... 353.0.html for more information.

SimonSchaufi · **Posted:** Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:38 pm

Hi!
I read the post: http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... l#msg48581
and i would be happy if there would just be a small php mailer (with a message table in the database) included in the core to send messages only to other cmsms users. it shouln't be as large as the already existing mailer module but useful for a workflow possibility later.
Another idea is to send emails after pages have been edited for example.

Workflow:
http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... l#msg50989
and the reply:
http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... l#msg51182

cyberman · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:49 pm

Another good idea for 2.0 would be the use of OpenID for login procedure

http://openid.net/

Pierre M. · **Posted:** Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:09 pm

cyberman wrote:

Another good idea for 2.0 would be the use of OpenID for login procedure

http://openid.net/

Well, I like openID, but shouldn't this be a 3.0 feature ? 2.0 features are already on the roadmap and adding to it delays the release. I'd rather soon a 1.5 with "only" full page caching, multilang and version control leaving the whole roadmap for 2.0.

Pierre M.

dhtml12345 · **Joined:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:10 pm **Posts:** 45

I would agree that full-page caching is critical.

Ted · **Posted:** Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:14 pm

Full-page caching isn't really possible in 1.x because of the disjointed nature of a lot of the code. The restructing in 2.0 made is SO much easier to pull off the full-caching. Not to mention all the necessary hooks to clear the cache properly after saving data. It'd be a LOT of work to bolt onto 1.x...

Honestly, I can see openid as a 2.0 feature if it could be put in in time, but it's not critical by any means. I still want it, though.

SimonSchaufi · **Posted:** Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:50 pm

a few questions about full page caching:
- will formulars like the contact form still work?
- will it be possible for the frontend users to login?

CMSMS 2.0 (say what now?!)

Who is online