I understand the 31, but it's 5 levels not 31 with the constraint I
described below. But your point is well-taken. I guess I should look for
where issues similar to the ones you raise might arise.
On the accounting/construction issue you raise, I have a similar one I
didn't mention.
Project Content Users with "Read all, Add/Update" Access may Add/Update
projects at their campus only (there are 33 campuses). I address this by
insuring each User is assigned a CampusID (except for Project Managers and
above).
best, paul
At 01:07 PM 5/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, you're not limited to 5 levels, but rather 31; if you feel confident
>that will be enough then you're set.
>
>Your second approach works IF you can always assume that all the security
>levels are either lesser or greater than the new one you want to add, never
>"equal". But if you need to have two security levels, one with rights to
>read pages about accounting projects (but not construction projects) and the
>other with rights to read pages about construction projects (but not
>accounting projects), which gets the higher number?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:13 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: Bit Masks
>
>
>Thanks for the list tip!
>
>I'm just now developing an application using CF's BitAnd() function.
>
>In my application, I currently have the following permission levels:
>
>Level User Description
> Permission
> DB value for
> BitAnd
>
>1 1 Public - future permission level
> READ selected pages
>2 3 Basic Project Read User
> Read all pages
>4 7 Basic Project Content User
> Read all, Add/Update selected data
>8 15 Project Manager User
> Read all, Add/Update all
>16 31 me ;-)
>
>Since a User with a larger permission value must also have the access all
>Users with lesser permission values do, CF's BitAnd enables only 5
>permission levels. I'm concerned the client might come up with additional
>permission levels/groups in the future, thereby defeating my use of BitAnd,
>and forcing me to modify code/user database/client database to use a list
>instead of BitAnd.
>
>Or have I missed a clever way to use BitAnd?
>
>best, paul
>
>
>PS> It sure helps to ask for help;-) Now that I've done so, I think the
>simple solution to my problem is not to use BitAnd, but just adopt a
>sequence of increasing numbers, for example: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc (go by
>5's to allow future insertion of new intermediate permission levels), and
>verify a User's permission is greater than a target. That way, I still
>only need to store a single number in the database as with BitAnd, and
>don't need to go to using a list. Any comments?
>
>
>At 10:48 AM 5/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >Bit masks are cool, but remember that there is a limit to how much info you
> >can pack in a bitmask because CF doesn't let you use the bit functions on
> >anything of more than 32 bits. I have taken to using lists for this sort
>of
> >thing because there's no practical limit to how many items it can contain
> >and there are lots of useful list functions in CF.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ken Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 4:54 PM
> >To: CF-Talk
> >Subject: Bit Masks
> >
> >
> >Hello!
> >
> >I believe that someone once gave a presentation at one of the CFUGs about
> >using bit masks, also know as Right Bit AND, to set up security access
> >levels. This wasn't the same as the presentation at the Fig Leaf site
> >that's slight more oriented towards hierarchy uses. I've looked at all the
> >CFUG sites linked to from the Allaire site but I can't find the
> >presentation. Does anyone recall where the presentation was made and/or
>how
> >to get the presentation file?
> >
> >Thx
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
