On 28 Wrz, 22:35, "Deryck Hodge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hrrmmmm... I see your point about each, at least as a use case. I > think there are ways to get what you want without, though. I see that I can define a model called GlobalPermissions and set my custom permissions on it.
> For case #1, I'd opt to create an entry for the reports in my DB to > pair them with users/groups, which would allow custom permissions. Yup. There is an option to create a table for reports and then set some permissions on it. > For #2, I'd create an Author class with a fk relationship to User and > create permissions that way. And this one is harder... What for the fk here? You see Authors as an association table? It will work but do I really need a separate table and more complicated db calls just to have some permissions? I don't think so...But in other case (without fk) Authors table will be just permissions container for me... er... > The content types app assumes each content type is for an installed > app. That's the whole point really -- to create a generic way to > refer to objects within an app, or across apps. Since your issue is > permissions, I'd try to hang my permissions on actual models. Ok I understand it. Thanks for your answers. Jakub Wiśniowski --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
