pp wrote: > > It isn't a waste, but we are going around in circles a bit. I'm OK > > with helping you to find workarounds. I'm also open to discuss > > content-sharing designs. But sitegroups is meant to clearly separate > > sites, so for sharing we'll want to use another technique. > > I think that way of "sharing" is good enough, but > made some problems in my case. > Also I do not think that transparent SG0 is good for that usage.
I agree. > While logged to another SG, You cannot write anything in SG0. Correct. > Read-only access is made with groups. Correct. > Besides I think there should't be other shared SG. I agree. > There should be some check if an object can be shared, > for example two hosts which has different or similiar content > and want to share images. Shared between sitegroups, you mean? As I said, sitegroups were designed to prevent just that. A better access control mechanism (one that includes read permissions) would be a better approach, I think. > This way someone can prepare site templates for example. > Or persons who are managing more than one host. Persons that manage more than one host can either put both hosts in one sitegroup, or have multiple logons (even have the same username/pass in both sitegroups). Emile --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
