Re: Auth_Groups and Auth_Permissions
| From: | Jon Wood | Date: | Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:49:00 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Auth_Groups and Auth_Permissions | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-32690@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:31:32 +0200, Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
The problem isn't the database schema you use, the problem is the fact
it's a huge API which takes a while to get the hang of. Database
schemas aren't a problem, since hopefully I don't have to care what
schema LiveUser uses to use it.
> regards,
> Lukas
>
>