Great email! Thanks.. So, let me spit it back to you and see if I understand it. And if you can come up with a better name, I would be very happy!
So, for the first example the logical entities are: Our Groups are: Global Pet Clothes Our Roles are Manager Users Pedro Luis Salma Lupita And our intersection relation ship is: pedro manager clothes luis manager pets Lupita manager pets Lupita manager clothes Salma manager global Now, does salma, since she is a manager in global mean that she is a manager in pets and clothes? How is this modelled? Is the global group mentioned mean that if you have a role in that group, you have that role in all groups? But without actually having a dynamic group to group relationship? And do permissions come into it at all? I guess, if I where to do this using the simple model I would have: Groups Pet Clothes Roles Manager Users Pedro Luis Salma Lupita And the intersection relation ship would be User to Group pedro ClothesManagers luis PetsManagers salma ClothesManagers salma PetsManagers salma ClothesManagers salma PetsManagers All of these groups would have a Manager role assinged to them. So the main difference is that in the "turbine" model you have to pick both the group and role they play in that group. Whereas in the "simple" model, you pick the group, and that determines all of the roles that the user has. Eric Pugh > -----Original Message----- > From: Humberto Hernandez Torres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:34 PM > To: Turbine Developers List > Subject: RE: [Fulcrum] Security Service Thoughts > > > Hi Eric > > > > > On a somewhat seperate note, what are the reason's behind the > > "turbine" > > models intersection of user/group/role? I just don't quite > > The user, group, role model is actually (IMHO) pretty > flexible. I have used > in several project and it seems to fit many situations. And I am sure > it fits in the simple model that you ned to solve. > However, We probably need to change the group because it is > an unfortunate > name. And > it frecuently missunderstood. > The idea is that every user has a role within a group. > Examples that I've seen in real life: > - You can have a catalog of products, but every departamente > is managed > by a differente person. Luis has the role manager whitin the pet > departament. > Pedro has the role manager within the clothes departament. Lupita > is a manager in clothes and pets. Salma is the manager in all the > departaments (global). > > - One company has many branch offices. Within each branch > officer, you have > a general manager, > a sales manager, a purchase manager. In this case you have > one group for > each > branch. > > - One site has several sections. One person is an editor in > section one and > a reviewer in section > two. Another person is editor in all sections. In this case > you have one > group for each > section. > > Basically, the group has a meaning that fits your needs. It > is NOT a group > of users as > it is in Unix. > > > grok why it > > works that way. Also, the torque code ONLY compiles. I don't use > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
