In this mechanism, does a role differ significantly from a group?
I have to admin a CRM system that has both roles /and/ groups, and it
always seems a bit excessive. But maybe there's some benefit to roles,
as such, that I'm not seeing.
Thanks, Ben
[JP]
As described, a role appears to
As described, a role appears to act essentially the same as a group
- a predefined set of permissions that can be assigned to multiple
users (as opposed to a set of permissions unique to the user).
[JP]
I should say, the logic of a role is essentially the same as the logic
behind a group. It
From: Ben Dunlap
Yes, they offer an additional layer of granularity on permissions.
The apps
I write use groups and role to limit acces to certain functionality.
The
roles determine functional access to records, ie what the user can do
with
them. The groups membership determines what records
This is where binary is actually helpful. You can store each
task/permission as a bit, ie, as a yes or no piece of data.
For example: read, write, edit, moderate ... a user with read/write
permissions only would be represented by: 1100, which in decimal is
12. So in effect, you're storing 4
On Aug 27, 2009, at 2:55 AM, John i...@dynatechdesign.ca wrote:
Hi,
What is the best way to assign permissions to users?
a) Each user has a list of permissions associated with that
user or
Nope
b) Each task/permission has a list of users that qualify or
Nope
c)
Sort of. Create two tables a login table with user details and a specific
field for a ROLE.
Then create a roles table that lists the various permissions. I store this
[8]
This process is significantly simpler when managing users, it's easier to
adjust permissions on one role than to edit a
On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Ben Dunlap bdun...@agentintellect.com
wrote:
Sort of. Create two tables a login table with user details and a
specific
field for a ROLE.
Then create a roles table that lists the various permissions. I
store this
[8]
This process is significantly simpler
Yes, they offer an additional layer of granularity on permissions. The apps
I write use groups and role to limit acces to certain functionality. The
roles determine functional access to records, ie what the user can do with
them. The groups membership determines what records the user can see.
Matthew Walker wrote:
And if you're running apache as root, you shouldn't be allowed to.
Apache should always be run as as nonpriviledged user.
On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 09:04, J Smith wrote:
A running script cannot change its own permissions
If you mean can't change it's user ID and/or group ID, that
9 matches
Mail list logo
