It can be a bit confusing and just an idea to streamline and make Fibery more “pure”. Since auto sharing can be turned on, I propose remove the manual sharing completely and users can create a “Share with” field. (Ideally a polyamourous relationship with both Users and Groups, but for now could be different fields). This will make sure we don’t forget to unadd someone, easily see everything a user has access to, and doesnt risk mismatch of data. Again, not sure how helpful this really is, but just toying with the idea of really just having Entities, Fields, Views, and Reports.
I personally really like that comments are a field that can be added and removed as needed, why not the same for sharing? Then the sharing by automation is also possibly by simply adding a relation through automation.
Still having a button to see who has access would be great, but that button will just show the different access to people accross fields, but not the ability to add more. (Or you could add to a particular field, idk).
Again, not needed for now. Just a thought to streamline and not have the same thing in multiple places.
Nice idea, but I don’t think this would be scalable.
Imagine you want to share an entity with Alice (as an Editor) with Bob (as a Viewer) and with Charles (as a Commenter). It would seem that you would need to set up a field for each possible access level.
And given that there are options for custom access templates, this could become unworkable/painful.
Of course, if relationships had attributes, I could imagine a ‘shared with’ collection field where you can add users, but also specify the nature of the sharing for each user, as a property of the relation.
Unfortunately, I think it’s a long way away…
While its true it would need more fields, I still find it to be more scaleable as it exposes the data as real data. I can’t see in a table view a list of items with who has access to each. I can’t see what a certain user has access to. I am curious to see stats in a month or two on amount of people who share manually vs share using auto sharing. I might be completely wrong.
It’s definitely an interesting idea, and works well for entity sharing on its own, but what about the case where someone has been granted viewer capability to an entity via database access, and then has commenter capability via a access template inheritance relation, and then has editor capability via direct sharing.
Plus you want to indicate that they are ‘Assigned’ to the entity.
It’s hard for me to imagine what the UX/UI would look like (assuming relation properties are not yet a thing).
(Databases as entities? They are basically entities under the hood no?)
It indeed gets very complicated. I think permissioning in general is something super complex atm in fibery. This is more of a thought experiment for when redesigning permissioning (i think I saw that on the roadmap some time soon)
As Chris has pointed out, relying purely on Fields gets complicated pretty quickly, especially for non-trivial use cases. I see the purity of the concept, but I can’t imagine an approachable UX for scenarios of medium+ complexity.
Redesigning permissions is what we are doing right now. There will be no second redesign in the next 5 years, I hope . It’s a monumental task, so there should be an unbelievable incentive for us to focus on this product area again.
This is fair enough. It works, and even works very well at that!!! I hope that in 5 years there will be relation props and fibery will be built only using the fibery building blocks. I’ll be sharing a long text with why and examples soon.
They are basically entities under the hood no?)
. It’s a monumental task, so there should be an unbelievable incentive for us to focus on this product area again.