[Opensim-dev] Remove check for IsGod in some OSSL functions

[Melanie]

That would overomplicate things, IMHO. There is no VIEWER BASED
permission that an estate manager has that an owner doesn't have.
Therefore creating a whole new method just for a single use (OSSL)
seems unnecessary to me.

Looks to me like a case of "Don't touch a running system".

Melanie

On 14/04/2012 00:21, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> I can see an argument for ESTATE_OWNER and ESTATE_MANAGER being separate categories.  I'm assuming that in the viewer 
> estate owners are can also be listed/not listed as estate managers.  As Melanie says, we have to be aware that 
> OpenSimulator is trying to accomodate many different use cases.
> 
> However, that does not mean that permission categories can be allowed to become a confusing and/or overlapping mess. 
> Whether that is or isn't the case I don't know - this needs to be written out properly on the wiki for all permission 
> types (parcel, estate, etc.) rather than only being embedded within the code.
> 
> I see that EstateSettings.IsEstateManager() regards an owner as a manager, whilst OSSL_Api.CheckThreatLevel explicitly 
> does not regards an owner as an ESTATE_MANAGER.  This is a contradiction.  The code MUST be internally consistent both 
> for sanity's sake and for ANY hope that the code can document itself.
> 
> In the first instance, I would want to create EstateSettings.IsEstateManagerOrOwner() and call this where appropriate, 
> with IsEstateManager only returning true for estate managers, as is proper.
> 
> On 13/04/12 15:07, Oren Hurvitz wrote:
>> Regarding estate owner vs. manager: here's the existing implementation of EstateSettings.IsEstateManager():
>>
>>          public bool IsEstateManager(UUID avatarID)
>>          {
>>              if (IsEstateOwner(avatarID))
>>                  return true;
>>
>>              return l_EstateManagers.Contains(avatarID);
>>          }
>>
>> It explicitly adds the estate owner to the list of managers. The permission ESTATE_MANAGER should match the method
>> IsEstateManager(). Therefore, it should include the estate owner.
>>
>> Oren
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Melanie-2 [via opensim-dev] <[hidden email]
>> </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=7462795&i=0>> wrote:
>>
>>     Not so. ESTATE_MANAGER MEANS estate MANAGER. This is intentional. I
>>     reread the code and found that it already allows a comma separated
>>     list notation, so you can use ESTATE_OWNER,ESTATE_MANAGER.
>>
>>     This allows for finer grained control. Please understand that estate
>>     owners may be significantly different from estate managers, for
>>     instance in the case of a mainland. This division is useful and,
>>     again, making changes could cause privilege escalation in some
>>     grids. So, -1. What you want to achieve can already be achieved.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> View this message in context: Re: Remove check for IsGod in some OSSL functions
>> <http://opensim-dev.2196679.n2.nabble.com/Remove-check-for-IsGod-in-some-OSSL-functions-tp7462127p7462795.html>
>> Sent from the opensim-dev mailing list archive <http://opensim-dev.2196679.n2.nabble.com/> at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> 
>