hi Chris, I think account and permission management are enough for framework and party/organization probably should not be in the scope of framework.
Using LDAP is definitely a good idea. But I think that should be only a option, because not all customers have LDAP. -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Christopher Snow < sno...@snowconsulting.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or, > does it need party/organisation management too? > > Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for > managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > > hi Chris, > > > > Thanks. > > > > For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from > > party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more > > elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even > don't > > need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its > own > > user/permission/role) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Michael Xu (xudong) > > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 > 0135 > > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow < > > sno...@snowconsulting.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up > >> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) > >> > >> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for > >> a standalone framework that has basic user account management > >> functionality. > >> > >> What party management functionality would you want to see in the > >> standalone framework? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Chris > >> >
