A function in the type would be fine. It may even be possible to include the result in the cache hash.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Scott Mebberson <[email protected]>wrote: > Any thoughts on the above and where it might be best to do this, other > than the views themselves? > > Any thoughts would be welcomed. > > Thanks! > > > On Oct 7, 2:04 pm, Scott Mebberson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Blair, > > > > Yeah, that makes sense. I really need two levels of permissions: > > > > 1) based on role, so that link you added above about Object level > > permissions will work the treat nicely there > > 2) once you get through the above, you should only be able to 'edit' > > your own objects > > > > That's where I need the custom stuff. I think this stuff would be best > > done in the type CFC, rather than the views. Can you recommend a > > starting point, or a method I should look to override to achieve this? > > > > cheers, > > Scott. > > > > On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, Blair McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The built in security model is great if permissions are assigned based > on > > > role. But when you need to restrict content for particular users (e.g. > only > > > the content's 'owner' can edit it) you will need to start doing your > own > > > thing. > > > > > Blair > > > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Scott Mebberson < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > I'm not so much looking to create a level change, just a low level > > > > implementation I suppose. I like the idea of setting up the > > > > permissions, and then letting FarCry take care of the rest. In terms > > > > of denying access appropriately in display.cfm or what have you. I > > > > could then create custom deniedaccess templates per type as required. > > > > > > I think that's better than creating something custom in the view, and > > > > theory wise, views are less portable if you bake business logic into > > > > them. You don't agree? You know, make the most of the infrastructure > > > > the framework provides us, that's the whole idea of one? > > > > > > Would be interested in your thoughts Geoff. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Scott Mebberson > > > > > > On Oct 6, 9:59 pm, modius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 6, 9:14 am, Scott Mebberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for that. With the new setup, where would the best place > to put > > > > > > that view controller logic? I'm guessing an overridden method in > my > > > > > > custom object, which extends farcry.core.packages.types.types. > > > > > > > > I checked out getDisplay but that doesn't seem to be executed. So > I'm > > > > > > thinking getView would be the place to put it? > > > > > > > Why do you want to make such a low level change? You could always > > > > > secure the object in the view itself. > > > > > > > geoffhttp://www.daemon.com.au/ > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" > Google > > > > group. > > > > To post, email: [email protected] > > > > To unsubscribe, email: > > > > [email protected]<farcry-dev%[email protected]> > <farcry-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou ps.com> > > > > For more options:http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Follow us on Twitter:http://twitter.com/farcry > > -- > You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google > group. > To post, email: [email protected] > To unsubscribe, email: > [email protected]<farcry-dev%[email protected]> > For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev > -------------------------------- > Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry > -- You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group. To post, email: [email protected] To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev -------------------------------- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry
