You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Entities within the scope of a tenant could be further segregated by the owner of the entity, which can be a user or an application of the tenant.
The current implementation of the repositories supports segregation by tenant, but when the repository is not per-tenant (or even when the tenant has users), this segregation would not happen.
A way of implementing user segregation would be to treat the user as a tenant, but this approach would go against the nature of multi-tenancy, and force Finbuckle Multi-Tenant implementation with some hacks.
Proposed Solution
Provide the contract IHasOwner that is used to determine the user owning the entity
Provide a contract to access the currently logged user of an application
When the entity managed by the repository implemented the IHasOwner, apply an additional filter that filters out the entities queried by the owner
When adding new entities in a repository that has no owner set, set the identifier of the currently logged user
Provide a method to bypass the owner filter (e.g. for administration purposes)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Entities within the scope of a tenant could be further segregated by the owner of the entity, which can be a user or an application of the tenant.
The current implementation of the repositories supports segregation by tenant, but when the repository is not per-tenant (or even when the tenant has users), this segregation would not happen.
A way of implementing user segregation would be to treat the user as a tenant, but this approach would go against the nature of multi-tenancy, and force Finbuckle Multi-Tenant implementation with some hacks.
Proposed Solution
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: