Re: [Exist-development] Proposal to change security design of groups

[Adam R. <ad...@ex...>]

>> Owner or manager really makes no difference to me. In English it would
>> seem to me that 'owner' is the more accurate and succinct term.
>
>  By limited I did mean that there are two possible roles: memeber
> list manager (hope that's clear) & group's permisions manager (change
> resource permissions, that change group access level). I'm happy to have
> only group's 'owner' if there only one role under this, but I did show: it's
> multi-roles defenation, that's why it bad one.

Okay I think I am not understanding something, because I can only see
that there is one role here?

>>
>> > (can change members list &
>> > permissions for group, it can be 2 different roles ) & 'member' (use
>> > group's
>> > permissions). It simple to see that there can be person that can manage,
>> > but
>> > have no access for resources.
>>
>>
>> I am not clear on why a group would have 'permissions'? Surely
>> collections and resources have permissions in terms of owner and
>> group, but not the group object itself.
>
> Mirror your view and you will get my one.

Can we teleconf about this, as I am afraid that I am not following
you. When is good for you Dmitriy?

Cheers Adam.

> --
> Dmitriy Shabanov
>



-- 
Adam Retter

eXist Developer
{ United Kingdom }
ad...@ex...
irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb