On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Scott Phillips wrote: > system, but that's been discussed before. To answer you're question these > columns are still needed because that is where DSpace determines who is > allowed to submit or administrate a collection, and yes those epersons must > also be granted the basic resource policies over those objects as well - so > its best to avoid situations where they are out of sync. We are way too far > along in this release to consider a database schema change of this magnitude.
Right. I was under the impression that, given the add/admin right in the resourcepolicy table, we could just use those. For us, here, both those columns are empty, for example. We've got a patch ready to roll out to hide the UI elements that populate them, in the hope that that'll stop them getting out of sync. I've only skimmed most of the talk about the architectural review, just being too busy to deal with the stream of emergencies at a local level. We'll definitely be working on the authn/authz system in the very near future, which will probably take us down the route of having an ACL implementation that can cope with Shibboleth and our local single signon system... I was just hoping that 1.5 would get us started further along that route. :-) Thanks for the response, -- Tom De Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Cambridge University Computing Service +44 1223 3 31843 - New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH -> 15/02/2008 : The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (59% of Full) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ DSpace-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech
