Hey Blair, Yeah, that makes sense. I really need two levels of permissions:
1) based on role, so that link you added above about Object level permissions will work the treat nicely there 2) once you get through the above, you should only be able to 'edit' your own objects That's where I need the custom stuff. I think this stuff would be best done in the type CFC, rather than the views. Can you recommend a starting point, or a method I should look to override to achieve this? cheers, Scott. On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, Blair McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > The built in security model is great if permissions are assigned based on > role. But when you need to restrict content for particular users (e.g. only > the content's 'owner' can edit it) you will need to start doing your own > thing. > > Blair > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Scott Mebberson > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I'm not so much looking to create a level change, just a low level > > implementation I suppose. I like the idea of setting up the > > permissions, and then letting FarCry take care of the rest. In terms > > of denying access appropriately in display.cfm or what have you. I > > could then create custom deniedaccess templates per type as required. > > > I think that's better than creating something custom in the view, and > > theory wise, views are less portable if you bake business logic into > > them. You don't agree? You know, make the most of the infrastructure > > the framework provides us, that's the whole idea of one? > > > Would be interested in your thoughts Geoff. > > > Thanks, > > Scott Mebberson > > > On Oct 6, 9:59 pm, modius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Oct 6, 9:14 am, Scott Mebberson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for that. With the new setup, where would the best place to put > > > > that view controller logic? I'm guessing an overridden method in my > > > > custom object, which extends farcry.core.packages.types.types. > > > > > I checked out getDisplay but that doesn't seem to be executed. So I'm > > > > thinking getView would be the place to put it? > > > > Why do you want to make such a low level change? You could always > > > secure the object in the view itself. > > > > geoffhttp://www.daemon.com.au/ > > > -- > > You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google > > group. > > To post, email: [email protected] > > To unsubscribe, email: > > [email protected]<farcry-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou > > ps.com> > > For more options:http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev > > -------------------------------- > > Follow us on Twitter:http://twitter.com/farcry -- You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group. To post, email: [email protected] To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev -------------------------------- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry
