[Typo3-dev] Re: The future of typo3

[Didier Geheniau]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: typo3-dev-bounces at lists.netfielders.de 
> [mailto:typo3-dev-bounces at lists.netfielders.de] On Behalf Of 
> Daniel Hinderink [TYPO3]
> Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2003 9:53
> To: List for Core-/Extension development
> Subject: Re: [Typo3-dev] Re: The future of typo3
> 
> 
> >>> By using defend techniques for frond-end, back-end usage u
> >> choose by
> >>> design that it is impossible to merge them!
> >> 
> >> Why should we? Noone ever answered this with a business case.
> > 
> > I Answer it now then:
> > 
> > Whe have a large de-centrelized organization who wants to 
> make use of 
> > the same system. Users are kept in a LDAP environment and 
> may only be 
> > stored there because they want user management on a single location.
> > 
> > So more websites are managed on one instance of typo3. 
> Every website 
> > can have a secure area for private information. A user can be the 
> > maintainer for one website and have rights for a private area of an 
> > other website! More then one user record is in this case out of the 
> > question!
> > 
> > Because they have a an own session management for single 
> logon I had 
> > to reprograme the backend for this so I also changed the user part. 
> > Unfortunatly I can not donate the code because our customer 
> does not 
> > allouw us to because of their session management. But I can always 
> > advice ;).
> 
> Did you not by this proove that it is far from impossible to 
> merge backend and frontend user administration/authentication 
> for the purpose in your business case?

By reprogramming the back-end yes. When something changes with a new
release and we want to go to the new release we have the chance to
reprogram the whole bunch! I guess I'm not the only one with this
problem. We decided to reprogram and try to influence typo3 to go in a
even more diverse solution where both requirements are possible. Other
people turn their back and walk a way.

There is need for our functionality, we recognize you needs. Everyone
agrees that the current implementation needs some improvement (not only
the fe/be relation). Then why not looking for a solution that fulfils
both needs?

Regards,

Didier