You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
I'm in the process of setting up another Confluence (ConfB). I validate users through my crowd-installation. I have users that need access to both the existing Confluence (ConfA) and ConfB - and more importantly, I have users (new-users) which will only be allowed on ConfB. They shouldn't even be able to login to ConfA.
I'm thinking about two solutions.
1) Create New-Users directly in ConfB. The old-users can gain access through integration with Crowd and new-users will have no rights on ConfA as they are not even i Crowd.
2) rename the "confluence-users" group in ConfB to ConfBUsers and give this group the global "Can Use" Put all the new users in Crowd and give them the group ConfBUsers. The old-users that need access I can also give the ConfBUsers group.
Are there any other (and better) solutions? Which solution will be the solution that is most "mainstream"?
Hi @Henrik Mikkelsen
If I understand correctly, you have a Crowd instance where you host your users (in an internal directory) who can access ConfA. I believe that the simplest solution for you would be to:
Make sure that ConfA does not have directory with new-users assigned.
I assume that "old users" and "new-users" are completely different users. I believe it would be easier for you to maintain your users from one place, which is Crowd.
I am not aware of any know challenges. I assume you do not have any external user directory and you rely completely on Crowd?
Are you groups disjoint? I mean your users may only belong to one of those groups and not to two of them at the same time?
No and yes.
I do have external directories in two forms:
Yes - at the moment at least the user groups are disjoint.