Reposting my lost chronicle: Revisiting the 'Trash Can' idea...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Reposting my lost chronicle: Revisiting the 'Trash Can' idea...

David Chait
Off the whole 'someone can get me to delete something' thread, I had posted
a new thread -- unfortunately from the wrong email account, and apparently
got no bounce message.  So, here's my email, again...

----------

A while back there was discussion of having deletions go to a conceptual
'trash' state, which could later be emptied (automatically over some time
period, or manually, OR restored).  This came back to me as I said to myself
"Gee, Nonces seem great.  But if there's another vector that somehow gets me
to try and delete my own stuff, is there a way I can recover quickly?"
Which brought me back to the trashcan.

The discussion revolved, I believe, around two points:
1. Do we really need 'undo' around deletions?  Or, at that point, around
other actions.
2. If it seems useful, how do we implement it quickly, so it 'drops' right
into the existing architecture with minimal impact.

We obviously wouldn't want 'trash' tables for every possible type of
content... Keeping the 'trashed' items in the main tables has benefits (just
another 'state', so as easy to query and list as any other 'state').

I just thought of maybe have a single trash table which could use an
ID-table pair to reference into other tables (posts, comments, whatever)
flexibly, with the timestamp of the deletion, and the prior-state of
whatever status field had to be set to 'trash'.  That would keep from
(ab)using the postmeta or other tables, and 'centralize' history of changes
across the system (which, obviously, could be expanded to tracking changes
OTHER than just deletion... thinking of potential future applications of
this...)

Anyway, just wanted to start this back up, as I still think there's some
useful tidbits here, love to hear opinions (again) now that time has passed,
a new WP version is out, etc.

I should say that this new idea of a trash table (or 'change' table) seems
to have some merit, and might make people think of other ways to use it.
Maybe using the 'per major area' meta table to store such infomation would
be just as good... I don't know.

Overall, given that the referrer discussion, and Nonces discussion, leads to
a situation where there still aren't AYS checks for everything, I feel
some need to give the average end-user a 'safety net' -- if they in
fact need it!  Which, I guess, has yet to be proven.. ;)  I mean, we know
they want/need an integrated spell checker... :)

-d

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Reposting my lost chronicle: Revisiting the 'Trash Can' idea...

Andy Skelton
On 4/24/06, David Chait <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The discussion revolved, I believe, around two points:
> 1. Do we really need 'undo' around deletions?  Or, at that point, around
> other actions.
> 2. If it seems useful, how do we implement it quickly, so it 'drops' right
> into the existing architecture with minimal impact.

Figure out what hooks are needed to make this happen with a plugin. I
would suggest your plugin create a table with two cols to hold
table_name and serialized_row.

Andy
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Reposting my lost chronicle: Revisiting the 'Trash Can' idea...

Roy Schestowitz-2
In reply to this post by David Chait
___/ On Mon 24 Apr 2006 18:19:04 BST, [ David Chait ] wrote : \___

> Off the whole 'someone can get me to delete something' thread, I had posted
> a new thread -- unfortunately from the wrong email account, and apparently
> got no bounce message.  So, here's my email, again...
>
> ----------
>
> A while back there was discussion of having deletions go to a conceptual
> 'trash' state, which could later be emptied (automatically over some time
> period, or manually, OR restored).  This came back to me as I said to myself
> "Gee, Nonces seem great.  But if there's another vector that somehow gets me
> to try and delete my own stuff, is there a way I can recover quickly?"
> Which brought me back to the trashcan.
>
> The discussion revolved, I believe, around two points:
> 1. Do we really need 'undo' around deletions?  Or, at that point, around
> other actions.
> 2. If it seems useful, how do we implement it quickly, so it 'drops' right
> into the existing architecture with minimal impact.
>
> <snip />

My initial instinct was to say that it would lead to confusion, much like
deletion in IMAP mail folders. After a second thought, I realised it would
be an essential feature to some, so should probably be implemented as a
plug-in. Think of it as thought it was tab snapback in Mozilla Firefox.
There is one additional concern which is privacy, which is the cost of
having an extra layer to deletion. Trash can annoy the user sometimes
because they facilitate a two-tiered deletion, despite a confirmation
prompt, which makes it three-tiered..

Roy

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Reposting my lost chronicle: Revisiting the 'Trash Can' idea...

Elliotte Harold
Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> My initial instinct was to say that it would lead to confusion, much like
> deletion in IMAP mail folders. After a second thought, I realised it would
> be an essential feature to some, so should probably be implemented as a
> plug-in. Think of it as thought it was tab snapback in Mozilla Firefox.
> There is one additional concern which is privacy, which is the cost of
> having an extra layer to deletion. Trash can annoy the user sometimes
> because they facilitate a two-tiered deletion, despite a confirmation
> prompt, which makes it three-tiered..

It doesn't have to be two-tiered. Delete could move a message to the
trash. Then a non-user interactive process could periodically purge all
messages older than some fixed time interval: e.g. 7 days. The interval
could be user configurable. Anyone with extreme privacy needs could set
the interval to 0 to delete immediately with no easy recovery.

--
´╗┐Elliotte Rusty Harold  [hidden email]
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
Loading...