Can I just check, please, for clarity?
[Noting that when I first realised this I had trouble believing that this is the way that Joomla with CB worked or rather, that CB hadn't solved this problem.]
Joomla provides a series of 'permission levels' such as Author, Publisher, Administrator.
However these permission levels are global e.g. a Publisher can publish an Article anywhere within the web site.
Also a user cannot be both 'Publisher' and 'Administrator' - the most powerful role includes the rights of all less powerful roles.
This is horizontal control (i.e. one level of rights across all content).
What many sites want is to provide vertical (also sometimes known as 'stovepipe') control, so that for example users can join a 'cars' group and only they can see the 'cars' section of the website. Within the 'cars' users there still needs to be the administrative role hierarchy (author, publisher etc.) but this role is restricted to the 'cars' group.
Additionally a user should be able to be a member of several groups e.g. 'cars', 'boats', 'planes'.
[It would be nice for them to have different roles for each group, but this is a 'desirable' feature.]
This allows a group to have total content control of one section of the website without having rights over any other section.
This allows the main site administrators to devolve responsibility for day to day content management of individual parts of the site but in a secure manner.
It is my understanding that GroupJive aims to provide this additional functionality - 'stovepipe' control.
It is also my understanding that Joomla! 1.6 is going to extend the roles, but that they will still be 'horizontal' rights and not 'stovepipe' rights.
Is this (at least mainly) correct?
Regards
LGC
Update:
I have managed to slog my way through the video design explanation and it is obvious that 1.6 does offer 'stovepipe' functionality, but the Use Case in the design does not cover one user having multiple roles (e.g. part time office worker/ part time teacher).
The posted Use Cases do seem to cover the complex cases for one person being in multiple roles but I haven't yet established if the design meets the Use Cases.
So - 1.6 seems on the surface to offer something similar to GroupJive (if I understand what GroupJive offers). Granted (as stated twice in the responses) that it doesn't do it in the same way the question is "Does it achieve much the same result?".
What does Group Jive offer in functionality that 1.6 does not?
Post edited by: LittleGreyCat, at: 2010/02/26 15:48