No, you're not forced to implement security on a fine level of
granularity. Lower level (or more granular) artifacts inherit
permissions from higher level artifacts.
You could assign permissions to a form field (or menu item) if you want
to. But you don't *have* to. The form field would normally inherit
permissions from the form, or the screen, or the component.
I don't want to go into much detail right now, but I can see you're not
going to wait for me to get the design document done. ;-)
-Adrian
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
The problem I see with this is that in an artifact based system we are
forced to implement security on that fine level of granularity. Where in
a process based system, the process can be defined as granular as
necessary for the application. Only when very fine level of granularity
is needed would it be necessary. The level of control in a process model
is as great as the application needs but is much easier to understand
for administration and configuration.
Andrew
On May 5, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
To me a process driven model is far more comprehendible to an average
application administrator, where an artifact based would be way more
technical. An administrator would need to understand all the
artifacts in the application in order to configure things properly.
Where in a process model, the admin only needs to understand the
process involved and the artifacts are associated to the process
during development.
That's a very good point. The design I proposed was based on network
administration - where every network resource can have permissions
attached to it and there is a great level of control. So yes, it is
technical.
-Adrian
