[wp-hackers] User roles - GSOC proposal
n.prasath.002 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 31 16:09:58 UTC 2010
I just played with some plugins which deal with capabilities.
There is an option to add custom capabilities (members plugin) where
you can define your own capability.
Where it is actually used?
what is the use of this option?
I think this capability would be an additional entry for the
wp_capability array in the user_meta table.
When we are coming up with a plan for an looseless upgrade how does
this affect when assigning roles for users.
Between where these capabilities being validated within the wordpress?
On Mar 31, 4:28 am, Mike Schinkel <mikeschin... at newclarity.net> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Andrew Nacin wrote:
> > Thus, this would only affect sites that use capability/role management
> > plugins. I would imagine that most plugins handle role management, not user
> > management, or at the very least, most administrators utilize role
> > management, as administering user-specific capabilities is much more
> > difficult and time-consuming. If you have enough user-specific caps to make
> > this nightmarish, then you probably don't have that many users, for that
> > reason.
> I guess I'm more concerned about newer sites that will have more CMS related functionality and not so much about the majority of the blog-oriented sites of today because, as you say, they aren't that many it will affect currently.
> > So, I would propose two things:
> > 2. That, for diligence purposes, we explore an option that eliminates
> > user-specific capabilities but keeps multiple role support. I can think of
> > an effective schema that keeps support for multiple roles that simply merge
> > the allowed capabilities, and still allow easy querying for, say, all users
> > with capability X. This could prevent us from oversimplification, which is
> > also something we wouldn't want.
> > The idea outlined in #10201 is controversial, which explains its
> > postponement for multiple releases, but appears to be gaining traction for
> > 3.1. I had hinted earlier that I would expect a compromise of some sort. If
> > multiple roles can be implemented sanely in the new schema, that may very
> > well be a good thing to keep, for the CMS benefits.
> #2 and the summary sounds good to me. Thanks for detailing it out.
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hack... at lists.automattic.comhttp://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
More information about the wp-hackers