Ok, that makes sense. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're basically talking about Single Table Inheritance ( http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/singletableinheritance).
So then to define some sort of ownership of a group, you'd simply add some sort of FK to the User model, like Manager_User_Id ? I suppose though, in my case though, I'd have a cross ref table because we will need the ability to have more than one manager for a group, and a single user could manage more than one group. has_many :groups, :through => :user_group But then what about a role based system? ie: manager, moderator, etc I'd want to keep that functionality separate from the current user/role setup because a single user may manage multiple groups. Sorry, I'm rambling on here. Clearly I need to spend some more time defining the functionality I need before moving forward. :-) -- Levi Rosol Twitter: @LeviRosol <http:www.twitter.com/LeviRosol> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:09 PM, sachin kale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can do that, cut off all the photo functionality from views (show > method of user, photos) > > For convenience you can add user_type to user model , this will have value > "group" for group. > Based on this user.user_type you can decide what functionality should be > provided. > > Or write a :before_filter , like - "usertype_user_required" in that filter > you can check for user_type. > > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Levi Rosol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Will that allow a User and a Group to have different functionality if >> required? for example, lets say you didn't want a group to have a Photo >> Gallery. >> >> Levi Rosol >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 PM, sachin kale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> I have implemented projecting a group as a 'user' >>> You can have a seperate model for relationship between group and >>> subscribers -> membership, which has group_id(i.e user_id projected as >>> group) and user_id(subscriber to the group) >>> This way we can have all the features for the group that are available to >>> user. >>> like group blog/photos/comments/home-page etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Levi Rosol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> So one of the next steps I need to take with CE is to implement some >>>> sort of Group functionality. The idea is that any user can create a >>>> Group. A Group will have nearly all of the same functionality that a >>>> User has in terms of a profile, comments, photos, friends (but called >>>> members), etc.. >>>> >>>> What are your thoughts on the best way to approach building this? I >>>> think because of how tightly everything is tied to the existing User, >>>> the only route to go with this is to create a new model from scratch >>>> and do a lot of copy/pasting to bring over the existing User >>>> functionality. >>>> >>>> Got a better way? Cause this doesn't seem very DRY. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sachin Kale >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Sachin Kale > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommunityEngine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/communityengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
