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

[Melanie]

Well, current assumption in the code is that an estate owner ism
able to do anything a manager can do. Except in OSSL. It's one thing
to rename a method to make it's function more clear, but I believe
the separate method you proposed is not needed.

If you rename a method, any external code that used it will fail and
will have to be adapted.

If you, however, rename a method and then introduce another one with
the name of the old one, but different functionality, external code
will still compile but behave wrong.

So I would not oppose renaming the function to
IsEstateOwnerOrManager, but I would suggest not to implement a
specific IsEstateManager function at this time. That functionality
is only needed in one place and there is already code there that
emulates it.

Melanie

On 14/04/2012 01:08, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> You are conflating two separate points, a category system for OSSL functions and the fact that the code is internally 
> inconsistent in its view of whether an estate manager includes an estate owner or not.
> 
> Any philosophy of "Don't touch a running system" is the way to long term irrelevance and code that is increasingly 
> complicated for new contributors to work out.  It has no place in an alpha-level open-source project.
> 
> On 13/04/12 23:59, Melanie wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
> 
>