-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 291
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC WebComment in Invenio 2 #2957
Comments
👍 for outsourcing commenting to an external framework, such as the proposed Isso. Comments are not the core business of Invenio and we are going therefore to be better served by some third-party modern framework. I have given a brief look at Isso and indeed looks promising. We should evaluate pros and cons though. Disqus is 👎 (unless someone wants to really integrate it in is own overlay) because it's not a framework/tool but an external service. |
For sites hosting confidential material, it may not be possible to use cloud-based solutions.
This would be more interesting possibility. Have you done extensive feature comparison? Also, what about per-page, per-equation, etc annotations? We may want to tackle the future of these two facilities together. |
Isso seems currently pretty basic. Doesn't seem to support authentication. On the other hand allows to attach commenting everywhere (identifying the anchors with a URI). Then one can programmatically query it to discover new comments in case of indexing. However the fact that has no integrated authentication seems a very weak point. |
We, @kasioumis and I, did a quick comparison an we found a few weaknesses on Isso. As @kaplun pointed out the user authentication is the most visible one. We also think storing CDS comments on SQLittle is not the best solution, they claim that comments are not big data and they put this example:
In a normal week we usually get around 500 comments on CDS. |
We actually have a user asking for that (RQF0475329) and it makes sense to have two levels of subscription:
|
WebComment is the legacy commenting engine which allow users to add comments to records in the form of a discussion.
The current main features are:
It would be nice if the new implementation is more flexible allowing comments to be connected to a document (or anything) directly.
One possible solution would be to build an extension that uses any of the existing commenting engines like isso(written in python) or Disqus.
But I think we should also allow custom implementations as some of the functionalities we are using right now are quite hard to find.
cc @kasioumis
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: