Re: We need another Auth

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:57:07 +0200, Markus Wolff wrote: >Am Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:28:53 +0200 schrieb Bertrand Mansion <bmansion@mamasam.com>: >> There are more than one html form class in pear, there are more than one >> template class in pear... > >I guess that´s the way it would be - having two separate authentication >systems that do things differently. I would like to avoid having two authentication systems if possible. >I didn´t have an in-depth look at PEAR::Auth, but from what I´ve seen, >it resembles the functionality you could achieve with standard .htaccess >basic authentication while being able to use a database for storing >usernames and passwords. Auth_HTTP emulates .htaccess-like protection. Auth provides HTML form based login mechanisms. >It does not, for example, have the ability to >associate certain rights (like "user may read", "user may write", "user >may make coffee" etc.) with certain users in one or more applications. IMO this is not the job for an authentication system, but for a permission handling system. Separating this two system from each other would be the best way. >My class focuses on user rights management. It was last week´s >discussion where the point was brought up that PEAR could use a standard >authentication and rights management system so that different >applications using this system could work together more smoothly, >without the need for workarounds and hacks to make each application >recognize user accounts or userrights of the other(s). I suggest to make your package an independent one ('Perms' or sth. like this) and make it use PEAR::Auth. Putting both packages into one isn't very good IMO since authentication and permission handling are different shoes. - Martin -- Martin Jansen, <mail@martin-jansen.de> http://www.martin-jansen.de/