Re: Auth_Groups and Auth_Permissions

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:52:41 +0200, Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote: > Paul M Jones wrote: > > > Lukas Smith wrote: > > > >> Anyways in the end if you want to make this a separate project you > >> should be aware that you will need a lot of maintaing. Auth/Perm > >> packages seem to need a lot of love. :-) > > > > > > Lukas speaks with wisdom and from experience. :-) > > > > But Auth (proper) by itself seems to have been very BC-stable (1.3.0 > > beta issues aside). I cannot think that a group-reader will be that > > bad; perhaps I will be proved wrong. > > I just want to warn about one more thing. > The second you have user groups, you also want to have sub groups. > The second you have permissions, you also want to have roles. And the > second you have roles, you also want to have sub roles. > The second you have roles you also need to think about what happens if > you want to be able to disallow rights that users get from roles. > Sub groups will probably be included, simply because they're not actually that hard to implement. Roles however probably won't unless someone can give me a *really* compelling reason - I've never seen the difference between roles and groups, and if there is one, it's something to be handled by more complex packages. > This is just a quick list from the experiences that I gained by > developing LiveUser. The point is: LiveUser is flexible and powerful. > This is only annoying when you start up but from then on they will start > asking for exactly this flexibility. > > So if this task is to go underway I urge the people in question to > really sit down and write what are the limits of the given packages. > Otherwise we will soon have yet another LiveUser in PEAR, as the > developers want to scale up the functionality with their needs. Also > what we have done with Auth in LiveUser is the perfect PEAR thing .. we > simply assimilated it. Therefore it would be great if we can do the same > thing for Auth_Groups and Auth_Permissions. Actually we already have > configurable tables and columns names for groups, we dont have for > permissions yet though. > Definately - I don't think any PEAR package should be anything but flexible in things like column names etc. > So essentially what I am asking is that these packages if they are not > build inside LiveUser will have clear defined limits as to their > functionality to retain the advertised simpleness and that some effort > is made to allow users to scale up using LiveUser if these limits need > to be stepped beyond. > Also a definate, the idea of these packages is to provide a simple model, and nothing more. If you want to incorporate them into LiveUser once they're done, that would be excellent news for both packages I think, since I wouldn't want to lock people into a simple model. > *disclaimer* > if someone can proof that LiveUser design is needlessly complex for the > goals it tries to achieve and has some ideas it would be nice to hear > them in order to fix them in LiveUser as long as we are still in beta > > regards, > Lukas > > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >