Good point! If I'm not mistaking I can do that without the need to change anything in the Rhino.Security code right?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > Hm, I get a queasy feeling in my stomach for that. Remind me of Win32 > Why not? > > public class BartOperation : Operation > { > OperationType OperationIsStronglyTyped {get;set;} > > } > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Bart Reyserhove < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> An integer so that I can use an enumeration with the different types of >> Operations I need. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What would you want that type to contain? >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Bart Reyserhove < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> I'd like to make a distinction between different types of operations. I >>>> have operations that are really operations such as for example "Login" but >>>> I >>>> have also operations for field level access, for example "User/UserName". I >>>> would like to make a disctinction between those two. There is a "comment" >>>> field in the "Operations" table, but it does not seem right to (mis)use >>>> that. >>>> >>>> Would you accept a patch that adds a "Type" field to the "Operations" >>>> table or do you have another suggestion? >>>> >>>> Bart >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
