From: Nico G. <sc...@ac...> - 2001-05-21 06:22:22
|
--* Alex Black (Sun, May 20, 2001 at 05:58:31PM -0700) *-- > user groups > --> don't need why's that? think about having documents that you want a group of users to be able to edit/lock/view etc? i can understand user 'levels' can partly solve this problem, but what about user joe in group foo and group bar and user claire in group bar and group stuff.=20 a document available to group bar would be for both of them, the one in group stuff would only be for claire. with levels, claire and joe can't have both common *and* exclusive documents, unless you link the userid to the document itself. or did i get lost somewhere underway? > > Looking at the API, i think implementing this as a bc module wouldn't= be > > as hard as it may seem. Although alot of the functionality in both > > systems will overlap ofcourse... >=20 > I would need to look at the code, but this sounds cool. >=20 > If it ends up being a pain to try and track stuff down, we can use some= of > their "methods" that we like :) indeed. for example, using a common user 'id' base would make it all pretty easy (for example grouping bc users & authentication into a midgard user tree) --nicolas -- nico galoppo - tremelo/leuven, belgium - erasmus/socrates student in grenoble, france - 4, rue b=E9ranger -- phone: +33-(0)76-85 23 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- [bash]:~$ man woman nico at crossbar dot net No manual entry for woman debian linux :: vim powered |