> > Additionally there is the fact that admins are inherently lazy. > I'd rather hack away for 3 days on something until it works as > expected/can be automated/integrated than do it manually.
Ouch! I hope there are no hard working admins subscribed here, there might be a rebellion. Is Wendy's scenario what you're facing? My guess is that you're just trying to invert the management model from application-level to directory-level. The reason I'm interested is that there might be an easy way to handle it that can solve the common (but limited) case. A general solution for this type of user management might require bigger changes and more development time. Brent 2011/1/20 Igor Galić <i.ga...@brainsware.org> > > ----- "Wendy Smoak" <wsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2011/1/20 Igor Galić <i.ga...@brainsware.org>: > > >> > So you would grant repository 'observer' or 'manager' roles to > > each > > >> > person in Archiva as needed. > > > > > > Which sounds like a big pain for an admin ); > > > > If you have lots of users, I agree it's going to be a pain to edit > > each one to grant them the correct roles. > > Additionally there is the fact that admins are inherently lazy. > I'd rather hack away for 3 days on something until it works as > expected/can be automated/integrated than do it manually. > > Unfortunately, I don't speak Java. > > [SNIP] > > If you want to see how things fit together in the user database, I > > have SchemaSpy output posted here: > > http://wsmoak.net/redback/schemaspy/1.2.1/SA/index.html > > That's cool! -- I looked at this directly with derby on the console... > > > > -- > > Wendy > > i > > -- > Igor Galić > > Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 > Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org > URL: http://brainsware.org/ >
