| Heinzmann wrote: |
|
Hello,
please could you help me.
The Restrict edit funktion is not working. Because my user Dirk is able to edit/delete the text from user Peter:
via select and edit.
Delete the - keep original text here - and then submit.
The whole text disappeared from the user Peter
I have tried both Restrict edit = 0 and then Restrict edit = 1
Please note my config:
[global]
port = 80
Password file = C:\Program Files\ELOG\test.txt
Admin user = admin3
Self register = 1
Login expiration = 0
[demo]
Theme = default
Comment = General linux tips & tricks
Attributes = Author, Type, Category, Subject
Options Type = Routine, Software Installation, Problem Fixed, Configuration, Other
Options Category = General, Hardware, Software, Network, Other
Extendable Options = Category
Required Attributes = Author, Type
Page Title = ELOG - $subject
Reverse sort = 1
Quick filter = Date, Type
Login user = Peter, Dirk, Kervin, Frank, MichaelH
Password file = C:\Program Files\ELOG\user.txt
Self register = 1
Login expiration = 0
Restrict edit = 0
Thanks
|
First, you need "Restrict edit = 1" in your config file. Then for each edit operation the system checks the currently logged in user against the "Author" attribute. Therefore, the "Author" attribute must contain the full user name. This can be achieved by adding
Preset Author = $long_name
Locked Attributes = Author
as described in the manual. |
| PJ Meyer wrote: | I finally got 2.60 Beta3 running on my server (explicit statements in cfg for most of the defaults)
Now I'm seeing a veerrry slooooow response time - over 3 minutes to open a logbook vs 10 sec in 2.54
Utilization of CPU runs to 60% on elogd.
Tried slimning down elog.cfg, 'emptying' userlog file (actually renamed so Elog created a new one).
Still 2.60b3 is very slow to respond.
When I rolled back to 2.54 speed was fast again.
Any ideas?
this is on a dual processor Win2000 server with 2 gb memory.
attached is the elog.cfg if that helps.
i'm stumped
7/28 Follow-up testing and trials
When I stopped using a password file - speed was quick and responsive (on test book with no password file speed was good which got me thinking about the password file)
When I added back in the 'old' xml password file - slow response
I created new password file with only one user - slow response (took almost 3 minutes to save new account)
I've attached the password file so you can try it out if yo want....
This has me very stumped. |
I can confirm .. it's very very slow for me too:
munmap(0xb7db4000, 4096) = 0
select(1024, [5], NULL, NULL, {6, 0}) = 1 (in [5], left {5, 996000})
recv(5, "GET /calendar_filter/imgs/window"..., 100000, 0) = 485
open("/usr/share/elog/scripts/calendar_filter/imgs/window_close.gif", O_RDONLY) = 6
close(6) = 0
open("/usr/share/elog/scripts/calendar_filter/imgs/window_close.gif", O_RDONLY) = 6
lseek(6, 0, SEEK_END) = 648
lseek(6, 0, SEEK_CUR) = 648
lseek(6, 0, SEEK_SET) = 0
time([1123066183]) = 1123066183
read(6, "GIF89a\20\0\20\0\306`\0\16\26 \r\27!\16\30!\24 .\25 .I"..., 648) = 648
close(6) = 0
send(5, "HTTP/1.1 200 Document follows\r\nS"..., 879, 0) = 879
close(5) = 0
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(1024, [3], NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 1 (in [3], left {0, 81000})
accept(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(57723), sin_addr=inet_addr("127.0.0.1")}, [16]) = 5
time(NULL) = 1123066193
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM, 0) = 6
connect(6, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/.nscd_socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
close(6) = 0
for every image elog has to serve one can see something similar to the above ... lot of time lost in selects.. then a lot of data (serving an image I suppose), then a lot of time in select again and again ... untill everything is sent, in a couple of minutes or more 
Maybe an issue related to the dns search you introduced in order to guess the correct host name ?? .. |