[dev] [cvs] commit: framework/Group/Group ldap.php

[Chuck Hagenbuch]

Quoting Ben Klang <ben at alkaloid.net>:
>> The longname vs. shortname is a side effect of
>> the datatree backend, and we should shy away from distinguishing the two.
>>
> I never saw it as a side effect, but as a handy way of working with  
> groups.  There are places in the UI where you might wish to use the  
> short group name, and others where the long group name is preferred.  
>  Making the applications (potentially) aware of group relationships  
> is, I think, a good thing.

This is datatree_id vs. datatree_name; imo this should be treated like  
gid vs. group name (from a unix perspective). I'm not sure how often  
you'd want the gid in the ui?

> I disagree here.  Why would we not want to use getGroupId(name)?   
> Personally I'd rather see all group storage done by name, even in  
> prefs, permissions, etc storage.  By storing (and referencing)  
> groups by name, the ID becomes internal to the Groups driver and  
> migrating from (example) DataTree to (example) LDAP does not mean  
> going through all the share, application, wiki page, ticket queues,  
> etc permissions updating DataTree group IDs (which are integers) to  
> LDAP group IDs (which are strings/DNs).

What if you want to rename a group?

-chuck

-- 
"we are plastered to the windshield of the bus that is time." - Chris