RE: Re[2]: [PEAR] Some questions about LiveUser

> From: Christian Schäfer [mailto:caefer@krachstoff.net] > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 11:56 AM > To: Markus Wolff > > Thing is, if we start supporting entities called "roles" and > > "classes", > > soon other people will pop up and demand support for more entities, > > called for example "rooftops", "kitchensinks" or "pets"... > > whatever is > > thought as hyperultraessential for an application. But in the end, it > > comes down to be able to assign rights to... well, groups :-) > > hmm.. I can not agree on this issue. > roles is not just another name for groups. when you thnink about > windows nt user managment or selinux, you will see what a role is and > what is a group, these are totally different concepts. your > implementation of groups is a concept of roles really, groups are much > less.. > > but yeah perhaps I coulds live with r_thingy and g_thingy.. The thing is we decided to make a flexible system. This is really beyond the scope of what most other permissions systems have. So yes our groups do more than normals groups in that they also handle the role stuff. But the reason why things are the way they are is that our system allows people to choose how to use their groups. If we also would have added roles we would just end up with a lot of redundant code for role management. Regards, Lukas