> -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence, Scott (BL60:9D30) > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 3:31 PM > To: Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30) > Cc: Krzeminski, Damian (BL60:9D30); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [sipX-dev] Is XECS-415 really fixed? > > > 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.
For sipX gurus, the idea of overlapping groups where the settings of the last group in the User Group list takes precedence but where the first group in the User Group list defines the location may not be so confusing but chances are that it will to many. Also, finding 'superadmin', 'sales' and 'engineering' intermixed with 'Ottawa' and 'Boston' in Gateway _Location_ pull-down menus is not as clean as it could be. I pleaded my case and I will stop there for fear of running another lap down the circular argument track. We'll see how much of this Damian will be able/willing to implement and we'll improve it based on the feedback we get. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
