
phillip at communitybandwidth
Oct 28, 2009, 8:51 AM
Post #7 of 7
(1229 views)
Permalink
|
I'm wondering if some kind of permissions API might help in this regards, i.e., allowing some "programability" when setting up new groups of permissions. Phillip. On 28-Oct-09, at 11:44 AM, Matt Rolf wrote: > Sorry to be late with this, but I wanted to add in my 2 cents and it > took some time to jell. > > For those not familiar with the Denison permissions setup as it > currently stands, each subsite has two groups of users - maintainers > and approvers. Both sets of users can do anything, including create > pages, except maintainers can not publish. Users are added or > removed to the appropriate subsite groups, and new groups are > created with new subsites. In this way, you can achieve a pretty > good level of granularity and control over what users have access > to while not having to manage new permissions every day. > > This model starts to break down when later on you want to add a new > group that can, say, just have recall privileges over pages in the > Academic section. If you've never created a group with a set of > just "recall" privileges over the Academics category or subsites > within it, and now there are 10s of categories under it, not to > mention desks, you can't just create a group in the UI and give it > permissions over all the categories below it - if I recall > correctly, you need to go flip the switch on every subcategory that > exists. And the same thing with desks, as the Denison bug report > from last week described. > > So what can be done? It looks like right now all Denison can do is > create new subsite groups with recall permission, have a student > propagate those permissions to the subsites (by hand, no less), and > then they could create group groups for the aggregated permissions > (Academics or Offices) like they want. Denison *can* get to what it > wants to do - it just has to go back and remedy an omission in the > original setup at the cost of 40 hours of student time. > > And I think Aaron and Mike's complaint is, perhaps rightfully, > that's time consuming and we shouldn't have to do all that work. > There should be a switch that we flip that lets us set up a > permissions group at a top level category and have that cascade down > to ones that are already created. We shouldn't be expected to know > every single permissions group we're going to need when we fire this > thing up, because that's unreasonable. And if this is really an > enterprise class app, then it should have tools that let us manage > these permissions rapidly at a macro level. > > But there's a trade off. Because Bricolage provides a level of > abstraction that allows fine control and almost total customization > over the creation of groups, it *doesn't* have a default permissions > model that it forces users to adopt. If the CMS were less abstract > in this regard, it might be easier to provide admin tools that do > what Aaron and Mike want - but Bricolage might lose some > flexibility. I'm not saying it can't happen, nor that what they're > saying shouldn't get fixed/added. But I am wondering out loud if > the situation is partly due to how the app itself is set up. > > And my other question is, if they can do what they are asking, would > it not "break" the permissions model that they currently have. In > other words, would building things out as I suggest in fact be the > "right" way to go about things and actually give them even more > flexibility in the future than what they are proposing? I'll come > out and say it, I think the answer to that is yes. > > I personally wouldn't describe the Bricolage permissions interface > as "tedious" or "brittle." On the other hand, "unforgiving of > omissions at site creation time?" Yeah, I think that is accurate. > Had the recall groups Aaron and Mike are on about been thought about > and created when the site was built out, I don't think this would be > much of an issue. But now we need a class of user with slightly > different set of restrictions, and having not known or thought of > that when we built out the site, well, here we are. > > I'll take full responsibility for messing up since I was the one who > built that out, but I don't think it's much comfort to my former > colleagues. > > -Matt > > > On Oct 20, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Aaron Fuleki wrote: > >> If you go to the Site Category Permissions for the user group, you >> can choose from the full NONE/READ/EDIT/RECALL/PUBLISH/DENY >> privileges for individual categories. This works, but is tedious >> and brittle (category additions/removals require remembering to >> update all the groups who need access). >> >> Under the user group's Object Group Permission section, you call >> also choose from the full NONE/READ/EDIT/RECALL/PUBLISH/DENY >> privileges for the "All Categories" group. This works for admin- >> level user groups, but not for groups that need, say PUBLISH access >> on many, but not all categories. >> >> The only privilege options that you can grant a user group to a >> category group are NONE/READ/EDIT/DENY. I assume this gives >> members of the user group privileges to READ or EDIT which >> categories are members of the category group. >> >> It seems like there are two types of privileges you'd want to >> assign to a category group: what a user group is allowed to the >> category group itself (add/remove categories, which I think is the >> current behavior), and what a user group is allowed to do with >> assets in those categories (READ/EDIT/RECALL/CREATE/PUBLISH - what >> I'm trying to do). >> >> How can you grant a user group, say, PUBLISH privileges on all the >> member categories of a category group, without manually setting the >> category permissions for each individual category? >> >> -Aaron >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Aaron Fuleki >> Senior Web Architect >> Denison University >> 740.587.5752 >> --------------------------------- >> >> >> > -- Phillip Smith // Simplifier of Technology // COMMUNITY BANDWIDTH www.communitybandwidth.ca // www.phillipadsmith.com
|