Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roles"

Jump to: navigation, search
m (Talk:Roles moved to Development talk:Roles)
(Let's start a new guideline for the wiki)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
Chris, I put back the forum moderator example. I think it was intentional. We want to get people thinking outside the box of what previous versions were capable of.
 +
 +
-----
 +
 +
 
The list of capabilities for some activities should include viewing as a separate capability since it is a distinct action from editing or taking part, for example
 
The list of capabilities for some activities should include viewing as a separate capability since it is a distinct action from editing or taking part, for example
  
Line 12: Line 17:
  
 
I've been reading the Roles documentation, and my a lot of work going on in here! Keep it up! I might be understanding something incorrectly as I can't figure out what the legacy capabilities are for? I thought that Roles are sets of capabilities. There might/should be Roles for all of the "legacy roles", which would then have the default set of capabilities matching the capabilities in 1.6. What are the "legacy capabilities" then? --[[User:Samuli Karevaara|Samuli Karevaara]] 07:27, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
 
I've been reading the Roles documentation, and my a lot of work going on in here! Keep it up! I might be understanding something incorrectly as I can't figure out what the legacy capabilities are for? I thought that Roles are sets of capabilities. There might/should be Roles for all of the "legacy roles", which would then have the default set of capabilities matching the capabilities in 1.6. What are the "legacy capabilities" then? --[[User:Samuli Karevaara|Samuli Karevaara]] 07:27, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
 +
:No answer yet... This was also asked in the [http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=61269 forums]. --[[User:Samuli Karevaara|Samuli Karevaara]] 04:43, 18 January 2007 (CST)
 +
 +
== Page too long? ==
 +
 +
I think this page is a bit too long and could profit from some refactoring, for example reducing some redundancies with other pages like [[Roles and modules]] or integrating [[Local customisation]]. --[[User:Frank Ralf|Frank Ralf]] 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Let's start a new guideline for the wiki ==
 +
 +
I am a new user and developer for Moodle at the University of Washington and time and time again I get frustrated about the use of first person everywhere:
 +
 +
"I added these questions here because..."
 +
 +
Who cares about you? I suggest a new guideline that encourages everyone to write more like:
 +
 +
"Here follows a questions section, the reason we have it is..."
 +
 +
I get pretty turned of myself to edit any documentation in this Wiki because there are so many "I"'s everywhere that it seems like one or two people are editing everything and if I do any thing to it that person would get upset. This is wrong an is an inhibitor to the fact that you probably want loads of people adding to and editing the wiki. Since I am new, please forward this to some wiki admin who can take this into consideration and add to a guideline somewhere (i don't know where they are).
 +
 +
Thanks --[[User:Jeroen van den Eijkhof|Jeroen van den Eijkhof]] 04:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
: I have no idea how the above comment relates to the [[Roles]] page. If you want to hold a meta-discussion about Moodle documentation, http://moodle.org/mod/forum/view.php?id=5838 might be a better place.
 +
 +
: It think it is reasonable to distinguish content on this wiki that is uncontroversial statements of fact (This is how X works: ...) from parts that are one particular opinion on a topic, but where other opinions are possible (I find that a good way to structure my files is ... --Tim]]. Of course this wiki is not the place for personal expressions of idiosyncratic opinions, but when you are writing something in the hope that it will be useful to a lot of people most of the time, but which in not the only right way, I think it is reasonable to flag this is some way, and using I, with a signature, so people can judge the source of the advice, seems like a reasonable approach to me.--[[User:Tim Hunt|Tim Hunt]] 07:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
:: Yes, that is reasonably. But clear and structured communication is so important when it comes to the growth of an open source community. And if you do voice a personal opinion that could be put in the discussion page or if you do put that in the documentation and no one changes it then that should be a sign of it being. --[[User:Jeroen van den Eijkhof|Jeroen van den Eijkhof]] 19:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:26, 23 October 2010

Chris, I put back the forum moderator example. I think it was intentional. We want to get people thinking outside the box of what previous versions were capable of.



The list of capabilities for some activities should include viewing as a separate capability since it is a distinct action from editing or taking part, for example

choice_canviewresults

legacy support for isstudent() and isteacher()

We could provide legacy support for modules (and core) to continue using isstudent() and isteacher() calls, by replacing these with stubs that simply wrap the new access control API and feed in the proper parameters. This might help reduce the initial effort (i.e., you don't HAVE to update every. single. module. at first, just the ones most affected by this API change. then, as time allows, and as modules are being updated anyway, migrate them to the new API)

almost forgot - totally looking forward to this feature. any ETA?

What are the legacy capabilities for?

I've been reading the Roles documentation, and my a lot of work going on in here! Keep it up! I might be understanding something incorrectly as I can't figure out what the legacy capabilities are for? I thought that Roles are sets of capabilities. There might/should be Roles for all of the "legacy roles", which would then have the default set of capabilities matching the capabilities in 1.6. What are the "legacy capabilities" then? --Samuli Karevaara 07:27, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

No answer yet... This was also asked in the forums. --Samuli Karevaara 04:43, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Page too long?

I think this page is a bit too long and could profit from some refactoring, for example reducing some redundancies with other pages like Roles and modules or integrating Local customisation. --Frank Ralf 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's start a new guideline for the wiki

I am a new user and developer for Moodle at the University of Washington and time and time again I get frustrated about the use of first person everywhere:

"I added these questions here because..."

Who cares about you? I suggest a new guideline that encourages everyone to write more like:

"Here follows a questions section, the reason we have it is..."

I get pretty turned of myself to edit any documentation in this Wiki because there are so many "I"'s everywhere that it seems like one or two people are editing everything and if I do any thing to it that person would get upset. This is wrong an is an inhibitor to the fact that you probably want loads of people adding to and editing the wiki. Since I am new, please forward this to some wiki admin who can take this into consideration and add to a guideline somewhere (i don't know where they are).

Thanks --Jeroen van den Eijkhof 04:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how the above comment relates to the Roles page. If you want to hold a meta-discussion about Moodle documentation, http://moodle.org/mod/forum/view.php?id=5838 might be a better place.
It think it is reasonable to distinguish content on this wiki that is uncontroversial statements of fact (This is how X works: ...) from parts that are one particular opinion on a topic, but where other opinions are possible (I find that a good way to structure my files is ... --Tim]]. Of course this wiki is not the place for personal expressions of idiosyncratic opinions, but when you are writing something in the hope that it will be useful to a lot of people most of the time, but which in not the only right way, I think it is reasonable to flag this is some way, and using I, with a signature, so people can judge the source of the advice, seems like a reasonable approach to me.--Tim Hunt 07:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is reasonably. But clear and structured communication is so important when it comes to the growth of an open source community. And if you do voice a personal opinion that could be put in the discussion page or if you do put that in the documentation and no one changes it then that should be a sign of it being. --Jeroen van den Eijkhof 19:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)