Re: All roles on the top?

Hm... maybe my latest post got drown in the crowd, so I try it once
again. Hoping for some further advice...

Regards, PeterZ


Am Dienstag, den 14.10.2008, 08:33 +0200 schrieb Peter Zechmeister:
> Hi list,
> 
> we are builidng our new website with a hierarchical infrastructure
> with
> about 60 zms-nodes in the moment. The number is growing.
> So does the number of roles. We have about 60 roles in the moment,
> also
> growing.
> 
> At the end, I guess we will have about 200 zms-nodes in one hierarchy
> and maybe 500 roles (Every department and every division gets one node
> and several roles). At the top we have one LDAPUserfolder.
> 
> So I have a question about roles.
> In the moment, we set all roles within the topmost zms-node. No role
> is
> set in the sub-zms-nodes even it has impacts there.
> Thus the handling of roles within the top zms gets more and more
> painful. There is the long list of roles in the roles-table but also a
> rather wide horizontally table in each object-definition-interface.
> 
> Now I am doubtful about having all roles at the top. Are we doing
> wrong?
> Should we set roles only where they have impacts? This would mean,
> setting roles peripheral at the sub-zms and loosing the central roles
> administration.
> 
> Can anyone explain please how roles should be handled in big zms
> setups?
> 
> PeterZ, JKU
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
-- 
Die Fabrik der Zukunft wird nur zwei Angestellte haben: einen Mann und
einen Hund. Der Mann ist dafür da, den Hund zu füttern. Der Hund ist
dafür da, den Mann daran zu hindern, den Computer zu berühren.
W. G. Bennis