Re: We need another Auth
| From: | Tomas V.V.Cox | Date: | Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:00:47 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: We need another Auth | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-6920@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Bertrand Mansion wrote:
>
> le 11/06/02 12:27, Tomas V.V.Cox à cox@idecnet.com a écrit :
>
> > Sagie Maoz wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter Bowyer wrote
> >>
> >>> Bertrand, I just want to say that I agree 100% with you. For me, Auth
> >>> is useless as it stands, and I end up writing my own code for each
> >>> project.
> >>>
> >>> What I would like to see is a great implementation of Auth/User
> >>> management in PEAR, that is pushed as a PHP standard. You know how
> >>> painful it is to try and integrate 4-5 existing scripts out there into
> >>> a CMS (Gallery, phpBB, Phorum etc) and to merge their authentication
> >>> and login capabilities. If we could come up with that killer auth
> >>> class that was acceptable for most script writers then tasks such as
> >>> this would be much easier.
> >>
> >> This is a very interesting idea, I'm for, and willing to help if it'd
> >> get in.
> >>
> >
> > Here we have talked a lot about it, and we always reached the conclusion
> > that is definetly a needed thing. There are people wanting to
> > contribute, many ideas, even a mailing list dedicated to it, but never
> > anybody took the task of writting some specs or present some code :-)
> >
> > Try seraching for "userclass" and "PEAR User" in the archives.
>
> I agree with the conclusion, we definitely need something...
>
> Markus is apparently working on something and if we stopped discussing this
> topic, it's probably because we are waiting to see his code. I think it will
> be a first step and everyone interested in such a class will have to try to
> contribute to make Markus code fit their needs.
>
> Markus said he would show his code by the end of the week. I don't want to
> put too much pressure on him but we are all waiting for it... :-)
> So, this is still work in progress.
s/still/finally/ :-)
Tomas V.V.Cox