WorkingCopy node with CIFS

[vincent-kali]

Hi all,

We've recently noticed a confusing behaviour when checking out a node from share interface:

1) A user select 'Offline editing' action in doc Library

2) Node is locked, and a working copy is created in the original document folder

3) Browser asks for downloading the working copy

4) User download the working copy anywere on his computer

5) The working copy is not visible from share interface, but visible with access to everyone from CIFS

End user question: which document am'I supposed to work with (locally downloaded or the one seen on my mapped drive) ? What appends if other user modifies the working copy found on original document folder..........

Is that a desired behaviour ?

Is there a way to hide working copy in CIFS ?

Thanks,

Vincent

[janv]

Hi,

>> but visible with access to everyone from CIFS

I agree this is a little confusing. I personally feel that we should add a new feature to make the working copies actually private (to the working copy owner) so other users only see the original document. In the case of the owner, they would see the working copy when listing via protocols such as CIFS, WebDAV etc. The REST API & CMIS would need to allow access to either (similar to Share). I suggest you log a JIRA enhancement request (with actual & expected behaviour) so that it can provide input into future roadmap.

>> which document am'I supposed to work with (locally downloaded or the one seen on my mapped drive) ?

The working copy owner can choose to work with the either the downloaded document (and then check-in via Share) or use the mapped drive to edit the working copy. I believe CIFS provides an option to run a check-in exe but I haven't used that recently.

>> What appends if other user modifies the working copy found on original document folder..........

I would need to check, but it depends on whether the other user has write access to the working copy (based on write access to the original). If it was modified then the working owner still has the option to cancel editing (cancel checkout) or otherwise overwrite and check-in. As I above, I would prefer that the working copy was indeed private to the owner.

Is there a way to hide working copy in CIFS ?

I don't believe so.

Hope this helps to get the conversation started.

Regards,

Jan

[afaust]

Yes - working copies should indeed by private. Just this week I stumbled over an issue with that at a customer - a different user was able to lock the working copy of one user through online editing. Incidentally, there already exists an issue since 2008 that would address this issue, but it has never been picked up: MNT-13006.

There is technically a way to hide a working copy in CIFS: the "hidden" aspect. This aspect allows the specification over which interfaces (CIFS, WebDAV, and others) a file / folder should be exposed or not. This is already being used to handle temporary files that may be created over various of the interfaces. You would only need to implement a behaviour to automatically apply that aspect to a working copy with the correct client access mask, and working copies should then be hidden from the interfaces you specified.

[vincent-kali]

Thanks to you for your replies.

I'll 'vote for this issue' (MNT-1306), no idea if it has any effect ?

And implement a behaviour as you suggest.

Do you know if there is any documentation available about 'clientVisibilityMask' ?

I quite concerned about CIFS performances, don't you think custom behaviour may have a negative impact on these performances ?

Vincent

[afaust]

It completely depends on your implementation how much impact the behaviour will have. Generally speaking, the version of SMB/CIFS that Alfresco implements is already slow/inefficient, so there is little to wreck there. Alfresco implements a very old version of the SMB/CIFS protocol family (one that has even been deprecated by Microsoft for a long while) that is very chatty and not suited for intensive or WAN use. There is currently no idea if Alfresco will ever address REPO-1393 to implement a recent version of the procotol family.

Since the hidden aspect and the visibility handling it provides are not considered "public API" by Alfresco, there is little documentation. (You should also note that it is "usually" not recommended to use something not marked as "public API".) The static enum Visibility provided by the HiddenAspect class (org.alfresco.repo.model.filefolder Package) provides utilities to handle the mask.

[vincent-kali]

Thanks for your comprehensive response.

I'm highly interested by a new implementation of SMB/CIFS as our customers are using it intensively.

Vincent