We have a need for 'Groups' here at work, so they'll probably get added in the next few weeks. *probably*.
james On 2/14/06, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:58:43 +0530, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> I could see an argument for then implementing "Groups" as a buffer between > >> users and roles, where Groups is an administrative, data-domain convenience > >> for bulk-managing users. You'd create users and groups through the web UI, > >> and roles and permissions during app design. > > > > I don't understand what added benefit will groups achieve, a user can have > > multiple roles. > > I was just mulling out loud (and post-Ambien, which doesn't improve the > clarity). I could see a potential use case where, on a company site, > "groups" might be for groups of users that are administratively different - > say, employees of the Tucson, Oklahoma City, and Ogden call centers - but > that have the same role. So you'd assign the user (employee) to his group > (individual call center), and then only the three groups need roles (tech > support, billing, sales). > > I'm not sure I can make a -strong- argument for it, and I can see arguments > against it, so I think this, like many things, falls to the principle of > "wait till someone actually needs it before deciding how to design it". > > Jay Levitt > > _______________________________________________ > engine-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-users-rails-engines.org > -- * J * ~ _______________________________________________ engine-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-users-rails-engines.org
