Users usually love to know they have access to assets as if they were regular files. But usually it is a risk to give users access to managed assets, because they can manipulate or delete them therefore corrupting the database.
A possible compromise could be to separate sync and database related info from representative ones. (1) any file that is db or sync related needs to become read only; (2) sync related assets remain numbered, but a separate folder is created containing symbolic links to these files like "example.pdf" (symbolically linked to) -> "0/1".
The same could happen to database content itself by providing JSON files. This should be a user option, since it requires a supporting file system and can cause additional issues and growth of the package. It should be clearly marked as a PRO feature and not be advertised.
github-actions[bot]
commented
5 years ago
Users usually love to know they have access to assets as if they were regular files. But usually it is a risk to give users access to managed assets, because they can manipulate or delete them therefore corrupting the database.
A possible compromise could be to separate sync and database related info from representative ones. (1) any file that is db or sync related needs to become read only; (2) sync related assets remain numbered, but a separate folder is created containing symbolic links to these files like "example.pdf" (symbolically linked to) -> "0/1".
The same could happen to database content itself by providing JSON files. This should be a user option, since it requires a supporting file system and can cause additional issues and growth of the package. It should be clearly marked as a PRO feature and not be advertised.