From: Phil D. <ph...@lo...> - 2013-12-05 06:45:25
|
Yes we are kind of doing authentication in a number of different ways - the salesman specific stuff - the user specific stuff for bank accounts and the wider generalised role stuff. Perhaps we are complicating things more than we need to? Phil Phil Daintree Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890 http://www.logicworks.co.nz On 05/12/13 17:45, iced lava wrote: > Hi Exson, > > Thank you for your interesting post. > > Personally I have always found it a little more time consuming to set > up access using roles, but well worth it when it comes to maintenance > of user access. Even in businesses with smaller numbers of people I > find it a chore to remember who has what access when applied at a user > level (depending on the application), and if some leaves the business > or new people come in, then we have to remember again what all the > setups are or have them documented somewhere, and similarly remove all > the user based access for those that leave. Error creeps in. > > In this respect it is easier for me to add the user or remove the user > to a defined role that has all the required access defined in one pace. > > If user based access is located in one user interface area dedicated > to user access, rather than distributed across various areas of the > application it might be a bit more easier to maintain. > > In this discussion however I think we are talking about the > granularity of the access, not a role or user access. I think > granularity or how fine the access is is not the same as if it is by > role or user id. Here i mean granularity in terms of detail of access > to some particular part of a page, a link, a transaction type. And of > course the granularity of access required may differ across organisations. > > Maybe we should think about access levels and how they can be applied > at role, [group] or user level at more granular levels than a page. > For example only - maybe we need to define access levels at 'module' > or page or transaction type (view, create, modify, delete) or menu > type link (transaction, report,inquiry etc) > > Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this! > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, ExsonQu <hex...@gm... > <mailto:hex...@gm...>> wrote: > > *Dear all:* > > I think we're facing more and more chance to add > control not > based on scripts, as we did now. We need more precision control > such as > recently Richard has added bank account constraint and salesman > control etc. > > It'll time consuming to develop control method case > by case, > and it'll be difficult for users to master it. > > Does it make sense to develop an extra regular > control way for > this? If so, which one is better? > > Any comments are highly appreciated! > > Thanks and best regards! > > Exson > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Shall-we-find-a-another-regular-way-to-manage-authority-tp4657044.html > Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK > Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. > Download it for free now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Web-erp-developers mailing list > Web...@li... > <mailto:Web...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK > Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. > Download it for free now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > _______________________________________________ > Web-erp-developers mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers |