From: Marty K. <mrk...@co...> - 2010-02-10 11:39:01
|
Ralph Lange wrote: > On Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:46:20 Dalesio, Leo wrote: > >> I like level - with initial values as defaults - >> interface AccessType { >> int getAccessTytpe(); >> static final int runtime = 4; >> static final int configuration = 3; >> static final int calibration = 2; >> static final int internal = 1; >> static final int unknown = 0; >> } >> >> The higher the number the more people get access. If someone wants to >> redefine these levels fine - and I expect it never to happen. This >> takes care of the levels that we could ID. >> >> > > Sounds good to me. > But - wait - wasn't the requirement for being able to specify fields > "that only the device specialist can set, but not the database designer, > and vice versa" coming from you? > If we go for level, we do not have this functionality. I don't need it > and I'm fine with level, just want to make this clear. > > As for detail, I would say: > - Calibration (EGUL, EGUF,...) is device peoples' stuff and more open > than configuration (FLNK, SCAN,...), which is db designer stuff. > - Access types are read, write and process, and if we implement a level, > the name should be clear on that. Let's stay traditional. > > What about: > > interface AccessSecurityLevel { > int getAccessSecurityLevel(); > static final int runtime = 4; > static final int calibration = 3; > static final int configuration = 2; > static final int internal = 1; > static final int unknown = 0; > } > > OK unless I hear otherwise I will go with this. Rule will apply to any level >= level specified. Also back to <rule level = "level" > And level can be either an integer or one of "runtime", "calibration", "configurstion", "internal", "unknown". Marty |