On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:39 -0500, Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30) wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 11:04 -0500, Robert Joly wrote: > > > > > Damian, I finally found some time to look up the work > > you had done. > > > Probably but some stories lead to confusing configuration. > > Consider > > > an Ottawa location where you have a set of designer phones > > and a set > > > of guest phones. For such a deployment, one may create two groups: > > > "designers" and "guests", the first one having many permissions and > > > the second one have a narrow set of permissions however, the > > > administrator would like to have phones from either group > > use the same local gateway. > > > In order to facilitate such a configuration using the current > > > "group~=location" paradigm, the admin would have to create a > > > permission-less group called "Ottawa" as well as the > > already mentioned > > > "designers" and "guests" groups. It would have to assign every > > > designer to groups "Ottawa" and "Designers" in that order and every > > > guest to groups "Ottawa" and "Guests" in that order. From a > > > management point-of-view, this is not as straight-forward > > as it could > > > be and is error-prone as things will not behave as expected > > if you put > > > the groups in the wrong order. > > > > Actually, my understanding is that the group hierarchy is > > fixed - it depends on the order of the groups in the groups > > list, not on how they > > are entered. (is this right Damian?) > > > > > This configuration is much simplified if groups and users can be > > > assigned locations. All that would be required here would > > be to set > > > the locations of "Designers" and "Guests" groups to "Ottawa". > > > > But since users can be in multiple groups, you're right back > > where you started with possible conflicts. > > That is correct however some subtleties need to be mentioned. #1- > Scenarios that have users belonging to multiple groups are not frequent > and #2 for those cases, conflicts could be avoided altogether by using > the user-based location setting instead of the group-based ones.
Sorry, but that argument is circular - you argue that multiple groups are rare in order to argue against using multiple groups. I use multiple groups a lot when setting things up, and overlapping groups are very useful because they express different axes - sales vs engineering and Ottawa vs Boston for example. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
