Hi Arik, I think the current model is actually underutilized as it is, which signals that even in its rudimentary state it's got too much going on. Maybe I haven't looked through the source code enough, but I really haven't found anything that a Developer can do that an Administrator can't (and I'm unclear on whether an Admin can do more than a Dev – or why I would make someone one and not the other or both). I think the User model as it is is fine for authentication and simple authorization at most and that's all it should do out of the box.
I understand that some organizations may have hierarchies and stratifications of roles, but in the zone Radiant is aiming for I don't think this fits the 80/20 rule. The fact that Radiant doesn't force me to structure my organization around its idea of who should be allowed to do what is a major selling point for me (and not to speak for everyone else, but I think I'm not alone here). One side-effect to increasing the complexity of the authorization system would be that extensions would be harder to write. E.g. say you're using page_attachments: should anyone be allowed to attach a file to a page? Should there be a role (asset editor?) for that or does that fall under a content editor's purview? I think having to take these things into account when writing attachments would seriously hinder sharing them with other users. IIRC a couple of days ago someone mentioned this extension: http://saturnflyer.com/svn/radiantP/rbac_base/trunk/ ...which may more in line what you're suggesting without adding the conceptual overhead to core. -Andrew On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Arik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to be really honest here and say that the user model could use > some serious love. Its great for what it is currently, but it needs to > grow up. If Radiant is going to see wider use in production from more > developers, the user model needs to be a little more than just > developers and admins. What about content editors or people who just > exclusive access to private parts of the public website? Eh, just > something to think about. > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Radiant mailing list > Post: [email protected] > Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ > Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant > _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
