Author Topic: user-safe discussion forum  (Read 2713 times)

gwieser

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
user-safe discussion forum
« on: July 09, 2007, 03:03:40 am »
working with the final release of 7.0, i started testing the discussion forum, which is a very good idea and tool to keep information at a single place.

unfortunately, every user can CHANGE existing entries, no matter who created it. as a result, one could change the entry of the starting poster into something completely different. not very handy :-(

proposal:
1.) user can only change his own postings (forces usage of security in projects)
2.) if a user changes his own postings, a note should be shown in the text when the user has changed this posting.

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • Karma: +257/-129
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: user-safe discussion forum
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2007, 01:10:54 pm »
That's interesting...

I thought the "Pattern Language" for Discussion Forums would have been well defined by now...

But looking around at the various forums I use each one is unique and I keep tripping over the facilities (which are often contradictory).

Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

«Midnight»

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5651
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • That nice Mister Grey
    • View Profile
Re: user-safe discussion forum
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2007, 01:57:24 pm »
To add another .02 CAD...

This case seems to be somewhere between the 'classic' forum paradigm and that of a wiki. Not bad per se, but possibly not what an organization is expecting.

Turning on security just to handle the discussion forum seems a bit much.

Perhaps Sparx would consider making this - whether or not forum users can modify others' posts - an option, which can be set by 'someone.' The "someone" in this case needs to be thought through.

David
No, you can't have it!