read-only view for pads #1

New issue

Closed

opened 2025-09-28 18:40:42 +00:00 by cf7 · 1 comment

cf7 commented

2025-09-28 18:40:42 +00:00

Owner

The idea

having a link that can be shared for read-only access to the pad without disclosing the original URL.

Current status

Some ideas:

[1] having a UUID for a read-only view, pad_id and UUID are independent, must be saved somehwere
[2] hashing the pad_id to generate a readonly_pad_id, makes it easier to work with, but must be saved somewhere again or hashed again (time intensive)
[3] having an encryption methods for the pad_id with salt to allow a 1-to-1 matching, does not have to be saved anywhere

All the above have different advantages or disadvantages. I've looked into [3] and even tho it worked, it made things way more complicated and the performance was bad (couldnt figure out why, but might be some problem with the websockets and the sync).

Been a while but just for later.

Might be enough to have the /raw/ endpoint readonly which would make things way easier.

### The idea having a link that can be shared for read-only access to the pad without disclosing the original URL. ### Current status Some ideas: - [1] having a UUID for a read-only view, pad_id and UUID are independent, must be saved somehwere - [2] hashing the pad_id to generate a readonly_pad_id, makes it easier to work with, but must be saved somewhere again or hashed again (time intensive) - [3] having an encryption methods for the pad_id with salt to allow a 1-to-1 matching, does not have to be saved anywhere All the above have different advantages or disadvantages. I've looked into [3] and even tho it worked, it made things way more complicated and the performance was bad (couldnt figure out why, but might be some problem with the websockets and the sync). Been a while but just for later. Might be enough to have the /raw/ endpoint readonly which would make things way easier.

cf7 added the

Kind/Feature

label 2025-09-28 18:40:42 +00:00

cf7 commented

2025-10-17 17:44:59 +00:00

Author

Owner

Seems out of scope - tried to implement it and it would blow up the code base from what I can say.

Some problems:

no jinja2 templates yet, which means main runner has a lot of dublicate HTML sections and bloat
it implies some sort of security which requires a lot of code, oversight an expertise (which I dont have yet)
I think there are better solutions for it atm

As of now, it is not in the scope and beyong my expertise. Keeping it simple and understandable is the current prio as it is all I need.

Seems out of scope - tried to implement it and it would blow up the code base from what I can say. Some problems: - no jinja2 templates yet, which means main runner has a lot of dublicate HTML sections and bloat - it implies some sort of security which requires a lot of code, oversight an expertise (which I dont have yet) - I think there are better solutions for it atm As of now, it is not in the scope and beyong my expertise. Keeping it simple and understandable is the current prio as it is all I need.

cf7

2025-10-17 17:44:59 +00:00