Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global Task Exchange Protocol

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#11

Post by madospace »

thomasdd wrote: post #10

Had the same idea couple of times, whet I needed to distribute tasks between couple of servers. Now I can imagine it, as some sort of TCP service (like EMAIL) powered by DNS records and TCP server/client. Maybe SMTP can be also used. This desires and requires more time and energy, maybe a team of people, maybe open standard and SW implementation of TCP services. This could be used, not only for humas, but also for au…

I wonder if this can work for task distribution. Certainly the idea of using these bytes of information to automate few things, of course yes!

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#12

Post by markonen »

secstate wrote: post #2

As someone who uses Todoist for personal tasks, Asana at work, and Basecamp for those clients who haven't migrate to Asana yet ... yes. From a pragmatic perspective, I'm not sure this can gain traction. The mail exchange protocol was built in a very different environment, and you'd have to get some serious weight behind this to gain much traction.

It does seem unlikely to that something like this would gain traction among existing task-oriented apps and services, but perhaps that's not the point.

To me, the more intriguing question is this: what sort of _new_ task management apps could and would get built on an interoperable platform?

One end result of the lack of interop in this space is that commercially viable task management apps trend toward being all things to all people. There is a legitimate need to satisfy a very wide variety of use cases.

If task management apps could interoperate on a common set of data, it might become feasible for much more narrowly scoped, purpose-built apps to succeed.

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#14

Post by madospace »

markonen wrote: post #12
secstate wrote: post #2

As someone who uses Todoist for personal tasks, Asana at work, and Basecamp for those clients who haven't migrate to Asana yet ... yes. From a pragmatic perspective, I'm not sure this can gain traction. The mail exchange protocol was built in a very different environment, and you'd have to get some serious weight behind this to gain much traction.

It does seem unlikely to that something like this would gain traction among existing task-oriented apps and services, but perhaps that's not the point. To me, the more intriguing question is this: what sort of _new_ task management apps could and would get built on an interoperable platform? One end result of the lack of interop in this space is that commercially viable task management apps trend toward being all thi…

Actually most task management systems allow that today, through APIs, but you will need some glue to fix them together, like IFTTT or Zapier.

This is not limited to interoperability, cross domain / organization collaboration tool. It is almost like asking what sort of e-mail tools can be built on top of email protocol.

You are right about the commercially viable aspect. But if I wanted to make it commercially viable I would not have made it open.

I think something like this WILL be the `interoperate` set of data that you are talking about.

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#15

Post by madospace »

michaelmior wrote: post #13

What is the use case? (Ideally, use cases -- plural.) I can sort of extrapolate from what is written but it would be great to have that clearly stated.

Good point, I will be adding them shortly.

For example - Project management involving multiple Organization. - Freelancers to work closely with the team - Open source Project development

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#16

Post by cjp »

An ambitious idea. Some questions immediately spring to mind.

> Task is owned by a Project. Project belongs to a User. User is a member of Domain.

Can Tasks have subtasks? Recursively? To an arbitrary depth?

Can Projects have subprojects? (see above)

I assume since a "User" is just an email address, a group email address would implement a "Group" at the "User" level?

In a company setting, Users (Contractors, Employees) come and go during the life of a Project. What happens to Tasks assigned to a User who leaves the (company|Domain|Project)?

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#17

Post by madospace »

cjp wrote: post #16

An ambitious idea. Some questions immediately spring to mind. > Task is owned by a Project. Project belongs to a User. User is a member of Domain. Can Tasks have subtasks? Recursively? To an arbitrary depth? Can Projects have subprojects? (see above) I assume since a "User" is just an email address, a group email address would implement a "Group" at the "User" level? In a company setting, Users (Contractors, Employee…

So any task with `Parent-Id` will be a sub-task. If User owns the tasks he can see the subtasks tree also. but if you own the sub task alone, for you it is like a normal task with an out of scope parent.

Recursive tasks works exactly like recursive calendar events.

I have not thought about Sub-Projects, any suggestions?

User-Group - That is interesting, I think it should not change the behaviour based on the Type of email, which is difficult to determine.

When a user leaves do the same thing as email - either purge them all or re assign it to someone else.

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#18

Post by cjp »

madospace wrote: post #17
cjp wrote: post #16

An ambitious idea. Some questions immediately spring to mind. > Task is owned by a Project. Project belongs to a User. User is a member of Domain. Can Tasks have subtasks? Recursively? To an arbitrary depth? Can Projects have subprojects? (see above) I assume since a "User" is just an email address, a group email address would implement a "Group" at the "User" level? In a company setting, Users (Contractors, Employee…

So any task with `Parent-Id` will be a sub-task. If User owns the tasks he can see the subtasks tree also. but if you own the sub task alone, for you it is like a normal task with an out of scope parent. Recursive tasks works exactly like recursive calendar events. I have not thought about Sub-Projects, any suggestions? User-Group - That is interesting, I think it should not change the behaviour based on the Type of…

> So any task with `Parent-Id` will be a sub-task. If User owns the tasks he can see the subtasks tree also. but if you own the sub task alone, for you it is like a normal task with an out of scope parent.

That should work.

> Recursive tasks works exactly like recursive calendar events.

I'm not sure what a recursive calendar event is. Are you reading "recurring" instead of recursive?

> I have not thought about Sub-Projects, any suggestions?

The same `Parent-Id` solution as subtasks should also work here.

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#19

Post by smoyer »

madospace wrote: post #7
smoyer wrote: post #6

I would suggest this is the perfect example of a project which should extend SCIM [1], a recently release RFS for this functionality. SCIM is Simple Cross-domain Identity Management and allows sharing of user and group information via RESTful JSON APIs. It's easily sufficient for vCard information and is also easily extensible. I think calendar and to-do information is the next step. [1] http://www.simplecloud.info/

Amazing, I think if we keep identity management as a part of configuration then it will be easier for development, till one protocol becomes standard. I will try to add this as a default identity management. Thanks for the link.

Our group is responsible for building and maintaining 108 applications. We were tired of building user-permission systems into every application, so standardizing our user and group system around SCIM solved half of the problem. For a standardized way of managing roles-permissions, we've adopted the ANSI RBAC [1] standard. The Apache Directory project's Fortress [2] sub-project is compliant with the ANSI RBAC specification and also implements ARBAC principles for role and permission administration.

The final piece of our centralized Authentication and Authorization strategy is a security server that allows a client with an OAuth2 Bearer token to access the user-group system, role-permission system, and to authenticate to our applications on behalf of a user using JWT. We're still working on a UI that will allow delegated administration (we've got 200k active users to manage) so that a manager will be granted the right to administer certain roles-permissions and it's then their responsibility for making sure their employees have the appropriate permissions.

We're in the process of adding ABAC style permissions so that we can manage user access in n-dimensions while slicing data (an employee might be allowed to manage financial data per the RBAC roles they're assigned but we also need to make sure they can only charge expenses to accounts that they're responsible for and potentially to apply limits to what they can spend without higher approval).

The first parts of our system are functional and we'll be rolling several applications with simpler permissions out over the next two months. We've actually been thinking about this problem for over three years, implemented the first of the ANSI RBAC roles over two years ago and we're finally getting the last pieces in place to make the whole system work. The only outstanding question is whether we can create a centralized UI for managing ABAC controls since these controls commonly require the context of the external application to make any sense.

In any case, I hope the two links below help!

[1] http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/rbac/documents/draft-rbac-im...

[2] http://directory.apache.org/fortress/

P.S. I should also mention that the system that's been running for two years now provides RBAC for over 3M users with our non-privileged accounts.

Re: Global Task Exchange Protocol

#20

Post by madospace »

cjp wrote: post #18
madospace wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So any task with `Parent-Id` will be a sub-task. If User owns the tasks he can see the subtasks tree also. but if you own the sub task alone, for you it is like a normal task with an out of scope parent. Recursive tasks works exactly like recursive calendar events. I have not thought about Sub-Projects, any suggestions? User-Group - That is interesting, I think it should not change the behaviour based on the Type of…

> So any task with `Parent-Id` will be a sub-task. If User owns the tasks he can see the subtasks tree also. but if you own the sub task alone, for you it is like a normal task with an out of scope parent. That should work. > Recursive tasks works exactly like recursive calendar events. I'm not sure what a recursive calendar event is. Are you reading "recurring" instead of recursive? > I have not thought about Sub-Pr…

> I'm not sure what a recursive calendar event is. Are you reading "recurring" instead of recursive?

yes! sorry i misunderstood. and now we have solution to both recurring and recursive!

> The same `Parent-Id` solution as subtasks should also work here. Yes, it will - but does it complicate the architecture ?

Post reply on HN