Memoirs of a Roadie

Over the last year I've made several releases for Labyrinth and its various plugins. Some have been minor improvements, while others have been major improvements as I've reviewed the code for various projects. I originally wrote Labyrinth after being made redundant back in December 2002, and after realising all mistakes I made with the design of its predecessor, Mephisto. In the last 11 years has helped me secure jobs, enabled me to implement numerous OpenSource projects (CPAN Testers and YAPC Conference Surveys to name just two) and provided the foundation to create several websites for friends and family. It has been a great project to work on, as I've learnt alot about Perl, AJAX/JSON, Payment APIs, Security, Selenium and many other aspects of web development.

I did a talk about Labyrinth in Frankfurt for YAPC::Europe 2011, and one question I was asked, was about comparing Labyrinth to Catalyst. When I created Labyrinth, Catalyst and its predecessor Maypole, were 2 years (and 1 year) away from release. Back then I no idea about an MVC, but I was pleased that in later years when I was introduced to the design concept, that it had seemed an obvious and natural way to design a web framework. Aside from this and both being written in Perl, Labyrinth and Catalyst are very different beasts. If you're looking for a web framework to design a mojor system for your company, then Catalyst is perhaps the better choice. Catalyst also has a much bigger community, whereas Labyrinth is essentially just me. I'd love for Labyrinth to get more usage and exposure, but for the time being, I'm quite comfortable with it being the quiet machine behind CPAN Testers, YAPC Surveys, and all the other commercial and non-commercial sites I've worked on over the years.

This year I finally released the code to enable Labyrinth to run under PSGI and Plack. It was much easier than I thought, and enabled me to better understand the concepts behind the PSGI protocol. There are several other concepts in web development that are emerging, and I'm hoping to allow Labyrinth to teach me some of them. However, I suspect most of my major work with Labyrinth in 2014 is going to be centred on some of the projects I'm currently involved with.

The first is the CPAN Testers Admin site. This has been a long time coming, and is very close to release. There are some backend fixes that are still needed to join the different sites together, but the site itself is mostly done. It still needs testing, but it'll be another Labyrinth site to join the other 4 in the CPAN Testers family. The site has taken a long time to develop, not least because of various other changes to CPAN Testers that have happened over the few years, and the focus on getting the reports online sooner rather than later.

The next major Labyrinth project I plan to work on during 2014, is the YAPC Conference Surveys. Firstly to release the current code base and language packs, to enable others to develop their own survey sites, as that has been long over due. Secondly, I want to integrate the YAPC surveys into the Act software tool, so that promoting surveys for YAPCs and Perl Workshops will be much easier, and we won't have to rely on people remembering their keycode login. Many people have told me after various events that they never received the email to login to the surveys. Some have later been found in spam folders, but some have changed their email address and the one stored in Act is no longer valid. Allowing Act to request survey links will enable attendees to simply log into the conference site and click a link. Further to this, if the conference has surveys enabled, then I'd like the Act site to be able to provide links next to each talk, so that talk evaluations can be donme much more easily.

Lastly, I finally want to get all the raw data online as possible. I still have the archives of all the surveys that have been undertaken, and some time ago I wrote a script to create a data file, combining both the survey questions and the responses, appropriately anonymised, with related questions linked, so that others can evaluate the results and provide even more statistical analysis than I currently provide.

In the meantime the next notable release from Labyrinth will be a redesign of the permissions system. From the very beginning Labyrinth had a permissions system, which for many of the websites was adequate. However, the original Mephisto project encompassed a permissions system for the tools it used, which for Labyrinth were redesigned as plugins. Currently a user has a level of permission; Reader, Editor, Publisher, Admin and Master. Each level grants more access than the previous one as you might expect. Users can also be assigned to groups, which also have permissions. It is quite simplistic, but as most of the sites I've developed only have a few users, granting these permissions across the whole site has been perfectly acceptable.

However, with a project I'm currently working on this isn't enough. Each plugin, and its level of functionality (View, Edit, Delete), need different permissions for different users and/or groups. The permissions system employed by Mephisto came close, but they aren't suitable for the current project. A brainwave over Christmas saw a better way to do this, and not just to implement for the current project, but to improve and simplify the current permission system, and enable to plugins to set their permissions in data or configuration rather than code, which is a key part of the design of Labyrinth.

This ability to control via data is a key element of how Labyrinth was designed, and it isn't just about your data model. In Catalyst and other web frameworks, the dispatch table is hardcoded. At the time we designed Mephisto, CGI::Application was the most prominent web framework, and this hardcoding was something that just seemed wrong. If you need to change the route through your request at short notice, you shouldn't have to recode your application and make another release. With Labyrinth switching templates, actions and code paths is done via configuration files. Changing can be dne in seconds. Admittedly it isn't something I've needed to do very often, but it has been necessary from time to time, such as disabling functionality due to broken 3rd party APIs, or switching templates for different promotions.

The permission system needs to be exactly the same. A set of permissions for one site may be entirely different for another. Taking this further, the brainwave encompassed the idea of profiles. Similar to groups, a profile can establish a set of generic permissions. Specific permissions can then be adjusted as required, and reset via a profile on a per user or per group basis. This then allows the site permissions to be tailored for a specific user. This then allows UserA and UserB to have generic Reader access, but for UserA to have Editor access to TaskA and UserB to be granted Editor access to TaskB. Previously the permission system would have meant both users be granted Editor access for the whole site. Now, or at least when the system is finished, a user's permissions can be set so they can be restricted to only the tasks they need access to.

Over Christmas there have been a few other fixes and enhancements to various Labyrinth sites, so expect to see those to also find their way back into the core code and plugins. I expect several Labyrinth related releases this year, and hopefully a few more talks at YAPCs, Workshops and technical events in the coming year about them all. Labyrinth has been a fun project to work on, and long may it continue.