I don't think you need to assign a different controller to each role. If there's no difference between a salesperson creating a project and a an admin creating a project why not point them to the same fuseaction?
The reason you would want different controllers is if the fuseactions for those controllers didn't do exactly the same thing. For example, maybe a salesperson's project needs to be approved but an admin's project doesn't. Or maybe an admin has control over more options. But if they're doing the exactly the same thing and it's just a question of who may do what, you're talking about security. Just restrict access to each fuseaction so that only the appropriate roles can use them. You can put all of the fuseactions in one circuit and don't have to worry about duplication. HTH, Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: craig girard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: another MVC question > > > I have 3 user roles > > template Admin, salesperson, guest > > template admin can do anything a salesperson can, but also > > 1. create a template > 2. delete a template > > a salesperson can do anything a guest can, and also > > 1. create a project from a template > > a guest can do > > 1. view a template > > when creating the controller for these is there anyway to > design it so I do > not have to duplicate the overlapping fuseactions? > > right now I see it as this > > /templateApp/controller/templateAdmin > fuseactions - > 1. create a template > 2. delete a template > 3. create a project from a template > 4. view a template > > /templateApp/controller/salesperson > > fuseactions - > 1. create a project from a template > 2. view a template > > /templateApp/controller/guest > > fuseactions > 1. view a template > > I would rather not have to duplicate fuseactions if need be. > The only thing > I can think of though is nesting the user role directories by order of > authority like so > > /templateApp/controller/guest/saleperson/templateAdmin > > This does not eliminate duplicating the fuseactions in each > directory, but > using FuseQ (SuperQ) I can at least not duplicate the business logic. > > Has anyone wondered the same thing? Is this possibly already solved > somewhere that I didn't read? > > Thank you, > > Craig > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
