[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GMG-Devel] Reg. temp access to private mg instance

From: Joar Wandborg
Subject: Re: [GMG-Devel] Reg. temp access to private mg instance
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:18:59 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120817 Icedove/10.0.6

On 10/02/2012 10:34 PM, Diptorup Deb wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 04:13 PM, Joar Wandborg wrote:
>> If you describe your use case providing a bit more details it would be
>> possible to file a ticket over at  and see
>> if someone jumps on it.
> Thanks for your reply.
> What I had in mind was -
> a) Create a private GMG instance with a defined list of users and
> different access levels.
> b) Now to share any media with a person outside this user base do the
> following -
> b.i)   Send them a temporary logon credential via which the media can be
> accessed.
> b.ii)  Set this to the temp logon to expire after a set amount of time.
> b.iii) So that they can only access the media for the time allotted.
> This access can of course be fine grained to be set at individual
> gallery/album etc.
> The benefit I see is that sharing can be made a bit more fine grained.
> Thus if there is an office party album you want to share with your
> colleagues you do not need to set them up on your server. Also temporary
> user management can be easier (potentially) with guests automatically
> losing their access after a while.
> ~ drd
> PS - Sorry if I am asking dumb questions. I have not yet done anything
> with GMG (e.g. setting up an instance). I plan to do so in the near
> future though.
> P.P.S - Is there a features list somewhere on the website?

Currently there's no fine-grained access control, or any access control
in MediaGoblin whatsoever besides site administrator Edit/Delete buttons
on user media, and an admin processing panel.

There have been discussions about implementing this though, and I
believe one reason it hasn't been initiated yet is because OStatus
support for access control has been previously limited or absent.

My guess is that access control would come after OStatus, partly because
of prioritization and also because we might feel motivated to implement
privacy the OStatus way to prevent confusion.

No one says this is how it is, but this is how I feel about it.

If you want to implement any kind of access controls you're free too and
if it can be easily carried over when we implement OStatus it might as
well be included in the core, if not it may benefit/inspire the OStatus
access control implementation anyways :)

~ joar


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]