Re: Auth_Groups and Auth_Permissions

Jon Wood wrote:

Sub groups will probably be included, simply because they're not actually that hard to implement.

well you will have to decide how to store the tree and how to read it. trees in database are not so easy for a novice, therefore the code will be probably too much for a beginner.

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.

well roles are a set of permissions where as groups are a set of users. since you also assign roles to users there are stricing similarities, however separating the two concepts is very important in alot of situations. anyways I hope I have made my point clear: define stricly what you want and dont want to include. feature creep in this package will result in a competing package to liveuser instead of a simple alternative.

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.

and I am asking that you atleast have half an eye on LiveUser in order to make things as easy as possible for us. finally i would still not simply brush off the idea of simply writing a database container for liveuser that uses a simplified database schema. regards, Lukas