Member Pages .... Re: [thesite] user selecteble stylesheets..

[Warden, Matt]

>It may be intended as a one-to-many r'ship (many user accounts for a single
>membership record) as I mention at the end of the email.

yes, that's how it's set up in the db. many user accounts can be related
to a single member record. rudy will have to pipe up with the reasoning
for that.

>> Also, from the User Table the User Priv is set.  Anyone with a
>> MemberId will
>> have a UserPriv of 2 ... instead of "1" which is what all users (except
>> Admin and God) have now.
>
>In the user table, the scale is 0 guest, 1 user, 2, admin, 3 god, right?
>In the member table, why is there another scale? The priv field in the
>membattr table handles the privacy gear.

my guess is that it was intended to be used until we implemented full
member pages.

or maybe it's a method to privatize an entire member page like
sourceforges "the user has made their skills profile private".

>Is it necessary to be able to choose between making an element (like a phone
>number) accessible to users with member pages, or without? Aren't they
>registered members of evolt.org either way when they sign up for the site?

we still don't know the distinction between user and member. there has
never been a "member" status in the past. it was just a number that could
be used if we needed it in the future (rather than moving admin and god up
one so we had another number in between).

>> displayed to anyone but Admin or higher privs.  So, that particular
>> attribute I'd indicate the Priv level, i.e. permission level, to view that
>> info.
>
>Yeh, that's never been unclear. I just don't understand the need for split
>user/member tables. If I join the site (as a user) to participate with
>ratings, comments, articles, etc, aren't I a member?

im not sure why, but i can have a username and password that would give me
a usual user account and also another user name and password that would
give me admin privs. these could both be tied to the same user record. or
maybe user at home, user at work. i dunno...

>userID's having a single memberid or something. The requirement might've
>been based on people needing home and work logins, but a single membership
>page, or something like that. Rudy?

aha! maybe that was it, then. tha's what i remembered too


--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com