9 replies to this topic

[Rugger]

Unless I'm being an idiot and can't find it, what would be really useful is during the block creation process, one of the steps is a permissions step, which you would have a multi select of member groups that would be allowed to view this block. If not allowed to view it, then the block would be hidden.

[Olsberg]

And unless this is already implemented in the recent IP.Content update, this is exactly what I'm looking for.

Blocks with permission settings opens up for more customized messages depending on the member level. For example, one could benefit from having a block presenting the site for guest, and promoting a paid membership for free member accounts, and for the paid membership displaying shortcuts to all their benefits.

Yep, this would be a great addition to the Blocks. Thanks.

[kotaco]

There has to be a script to do this, but I agree it should be standard.

[civ]

What a great idea - please implement this in the next version!

[WD.]

As of now, you can use if then statements.

[Rugger]

Would it be possible to get some acknowledgement or feedback from the IPS Management, as to whether this is a feasible idea for the future???

[WD.]

If they implement this, they will need a way to restrict access to caches. Keep in mind you should only cache blocks that don't use html logic or else the info might be displayed. For example, if MEMBER and PURCHASER OF PRODUCT 1 is allowed to see 'content' else display 'content 2'. You can't cache a block like that.

The only benefit this would give is if you want to cache a static block that is only served to certain member groups and ONLY accessible to those certain member groups. Not that that benefit is bad, I think it's a reasonable benefit considering performance improvements. If you are serving a cached block only to members in GROUP X and this will be served to 1,000 members, it makes sense to cache it and not use an uncached block with html logic.

[bfarber]

Would it be possible to get some acknowledgement or feedback from the IPS Management, as to whether this is a feasible idea for the future???

It's a feasible idea in the future, sure. I'm not sure what benefit it is to state so, however. I can't say when or if this will be included, but I read the suggestion when it was submitted originally.

[RafaelT]

This is really a needed feature.

[GreenLinks]

Not sure if this is a good idea. This can add tons of additional load issues specifically on very busy boards.