Support Adding Types to People App

[Oshyan]

@antoniokov

People App should be an App just like others with its own Types and Access. There is a chance we’ll make it into one as a part of our group permission improvements

There is a difference of opinion on whether “People” (i.e. “Users”) should be an “App” or “Type” at all. I think this is actually not intuitive. I imagine you have seen discussion here:

@rothnic

If you just consider how the rest of Fibery is built, the Users type just doesn’t fit the same pattern. A Type should be a basic Type and any custom behaviors are added via extensions. The extensions, as far as I know, don’t limit you from adding entities to that type. The Users type does. The problems I’m running into I believe wouldn’t exist if this architectural pattern was applied consistently.

@Chr1sG

After thinking about this discussion for a while, I tend to agree with you an elegant solution would be that ‘user’ is an extension (requiring an email address) available to any type, which adds the behaviours (permissions, notifications etc.).

@Oshyan

My feelings exactly. It is actually weird and awkward that users are represented as a type right now, IMO. The functionality that Fibery “users” brings - account association and @mentioning - seem more intuitively like “Extension” functionality to me.