[turba] Turba 2.3 without shares and more than one address book

[Jan Schneider]

Zitat von MailingListe <lst_hoe02 at kwsoft.de>:

> Zitat von Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>:
>
>> Zitat von MailingListe <lst_hoe02 at kwsoft.de>:
>>
>>> Zitat von Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>:
>>>
>>>> Zitat von MailingListe <lst_hoe02 at kwsoft.de>:
>>>>
>>>>> Zitat von MailingListe <lst_hoe02 at kwsoft.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we are in progress of update Turba 2.0.5 to 2.3. All the tables  
>>>>>> have been extended to the new schema and it basically works.  
>>>>>> What we have trouble with is the following
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have more then one source with different tables and must  
>>>>>> stick with it because some other application using the same  
>>>>>> database has no idea about the e-mail users.
>>>>>> Therefore i have set all sources to "use_shares=false" and set  
>>>>>> permissions with the "admin" user for all sources. This does  
>>>>>> not work (no listing possible) as long as i don't comment out  
>>>>>> "owner_id" for the sources in question.
>>>>>> If i comment out the owner_id unfortunately no owner at all is  
>>>>>> set when adding new contacts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this expected behaviour or have i done something wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to speak with myself but beside some out-of-office  
>>>>> replies i get no answer so maybe the problem was not clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have Horde 3.3, IMP 4.3, Ingo 1.2.1 and now want to use Turba  
>>>>> 2.3 instead of 2.0.5. We must use 3 tables for our address books  
>>>>> as some other application using the addresses demand different  
>>>>> tables for access rights.
>>>>> To not mix up anything we want to start with "use_shares=false"  
>>>>> for all sources and set the permissions in the Horde permissions  
>>>>> interface as the attributes "public" are gone in the new  
>>>>> version. With this normal users can not list anything out of the  
>>>>> address books as long as they are not the owner of the address  
>>>>> entry or the "owner" attribute is commented out for the source  
>>>>> in question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a bug or a feature?
>>>>>
>>>>> If i comment out the "owner_id" the users can list & search the  
>>>>> address book, but no owner is set if i add an entry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again bug or feature?
>>>>
>>>> Feature, if I understood your setup correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Jan.
>>>
>>> For the second one i tend to agree because if i comment out a  
>>> field in the sources normally i don't want it at all. The first  
>>> problem seams odd because if i don't want to use "shares" it makes  
>>> no sense to check the owner additionally to the permissions set in  
>>> horde or have i missed something?
>>> Is this technical reasoned or is it needed for some other feature?
>>
>> Well, it's been this way for 8 years now, and no one complained so  
>> far, so I guess there is a good reason to leave it this way.
>>
>
> This must be a misunderstanding : The Turba shares concept is as far  
> as i know from version 2.1 and has replaced the "public" attribute  
> which is around 2 years ago.

Correct.

> In Turba 2.0 the public attribute lead to not checking the owner and  
> we like to have a similar concept for more than one address source  
> (SQL table) which are readable by all and changeable by some admin  
> users. This was no problem at all with the Turba 2.0  
> read_only,public and admin_users attributes but i failed to get it  
> working with Turba 2.3 without killing the owner field for the  
> sources completely.

This is not true, the owner field has been required for 8 years when  
public address books have been added to Turba.

Jan.

-- 
Do you need professional PHP or Horde consulting?
http://horde.org/consulting/