PDA

View Full Version : PhotoPost lic owner and main adminstrator different people


sstodvictory
July 13th, 2006, 09:08 PM
I've been looking at PhotoPost on behalf of another person who would be the PhotoPost license owner, and who also owns a VB 3.X license. We split VB administration with the owner doing the lighter stuff and me doing upgrades and chores requiring server, OS and MySQL skills. Thus his VB customer number, customer password and license number are known to both of us. We don't share a PC - we access VB member resources from different places. It works well for Vbulletin. If PhotoPost is to be feasible for us it would have to work similar.

After reading your announcement about customer verification in these support forums I'm wondering how this would work for PhotoPost, We both need to log into the members area......me to download upgrades and he to purchase license renewals. We would both need support in the forums, though I may use it more than he. Your forums customer verification scheme implies that we'd both need to enter the same customer number in our respective user profiles if we were both to receive support.

Will that work, or will we need to create a single user account in the support forums for us both to use? I know the potential problem of concurrent logins - it will happen rarely if at all so it doesn't worry me.

Just to prevent misunderstanding, we would run one copy of the software at one URL, but it does bring up my second question. With Vbulletin it is permitted to run a development/testing version at a private LAN in addition to at the published URL. Is this also permitted with PhotoPost?

Many thanks,

Steve

KW802
July 14th, 2006, 12:09 AM
Having a single account would be the way to go for support. Currently, to my knowledge, the verification system wants a one-to-one relationship between the forum account and license account.

Having a second PhotoPost installation at non-public URL for testing/development shouldn't be a problem (most sites I know have a private test copy for development before rolling out the changes to the live site) but it would indeed have to be completely blocked off from the public.