Re: We need another Auth

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:19:04 +0200 Michael Haertl <mhaertl@emiga.de> wrote: > > > Markus Wolff wrote: > > 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. 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. > > Martin, please correct me if I´m wrong here. Especially, take a look to the optional data you can load. I use Auth for a simple (one level) permission system. Auth is really opened and and may be used as the authentification module for a permission module. > PEAR::Auth := "Authentication" > "Authentication" != "Authorization" > > IMHO your rights management should not be part of a pure authentication > class like PEAR::Auth. It's exactly the conclusion people got during the last discussion about "Authentification". We do not have to be confused between permissions and authentifications, same for secure a site and authenfication. Authentification is only a part of the job to secure a site. pa