Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "HR Directory Access Control Policy"
(→See Also) |
(→See Also) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
* [http://wiki.eclipse.org/Access_Control_Use_Cases#HR_directory (this) HR Directory use case] | * [http://wiki.eclipse.org/Access_Control_Use_Cases#HR_directory (this) HR Directory use case] | ||
| − | * [[Access Control Use Cases]] | + | * all [[Access Control Use Cases]] |
Revision as of 17:52, 13 July 2008
{{#eclipseproject:technology.higgins}}
Notes
The above is a second (v2) attempt at modeling this use-case.
- A new diagramming style is used--it is more compact at representing the literal attributes of an Entity within a single rectangular box.
- The entire use case now fits on one diagram (just barely!)
- The new group higgins:subject sub-attribute is now being used
- A new selfInstanceOf higgins:subject sub-attribute is now being used
- See HOWL Update 1.1.104 for related changes to support this use case
The problem found last week remains. These two dimensions of "resource scoping" are orthogonal and both must be specified:
- what Attribute type(s) the Policy is talking about
- the set of Entities that the Policy is talking about
The problem is that ex:p[1-3]'s :read and :modify links all "point" to an Attribute type, but these links don't indicate what set of Entities we're talking about since one Attribute type may be used by N Entity classes.