Re: Supposed behaviour of the "visible ids" setting

On 24 Dec 2013, at 9:07 am, David Glick (Plone) <david.glick-z4DKO/[email protected]> wrote:

> On 12/23/13, 1:58 PM, Dylan Jay wrote:
>> 
>> On 24 Dec 2013 08:06, "Eric Steele" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 23 Dec 2013, at 10:44, Luca Fabbri wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Timo Stollenwerk tisto-z4DKO/[email protected] wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm currently working on the PLIP to move all control panels in Plone to
>> >>> use z3c.form/p.a.registry and I was wondering about the supposed
>> >>> behaviour of the "visible_ids" setting.
>> >>>
>> >>> On a vanilla Plone 4.2/4.3 it seems this setting does not have any
>> >>> effect at all. If it is enabled, there is no additional id field on the
>> >>> edit view of a content object and it is always possible to edit the id
>> >>> of a content object through the folder_contents view.
>> >>
>> >> I used this few days ago on PLone 4.2 and it was working as expected:
>> >> remember that you must enable both the site general setting and the
>> >>
>> >> same preference in the user's preferences.
>> >
>> > That's correct. The control panel checkbox controls access to the personal preferences setting. You're basically saying "People are alloChangingee the id field if they want to." It doesn't automatically turn it on sitewide. Does anyone turn on the id field by default?
>> Anyone know the original idea why setting the id is so many steps to enable? 
>> Given the user can do it by actions rename anyway. Btw Changing URL via rename is a extra training step we always have to do since its not intuitive.
>> 
> 
> I think we should get rid of the preference and the global setting, and have the Short Name field always appear on the Settings tab when editing an item. That way it's a bit out of the way (not cluttering up the initial edit page), but it's also easier to access than either the rename dialog or turning on the visible ids preference.
> 
> If left blank on an add form, the current name chooser logic would apply.

+1. 
The upcoming proposal for folderish content types means that there will also be an extra title and description field. Due to getting rid of default pages, it's likely that all content types are going to need a place to override the title and description that appears on navigation elements.  This is if the user wants them to be different from what appears in the content area so could also be left blank to have them the same. The id field should probably be on the same tab as those fields would be. Not sure what tab that is though.

> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT 
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance 
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your 
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk