On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> Does it make any sense? Is it already there (meaning, am I stupid not to see
> it?), and is something someone else wants/requires????
Makes perfect sense - and blame me for not putting it in there - I've done
exactly this for customers abusing the r->notes.
The reason why a generic solution is hard is that basic auth is just one
of the many auth methods - not all of which have a natural 'group'
concept. So you may end up being very specific to the auth method. You
could make the argument that the Realm string is closer to the protocol.
It might be an idea to have an opaque key/value pair block keyed on the
auth name; i.e.
modulename ~+ m/mod_(\w+).c/
$1 . '_' . $key
auth_realm
auth_uname
auth_group
auth_group_required
secureid_uname
secureid_pin
secureid_tokenserial
sysem_userid
sysem_group
sysem_class
ssl_certid
ssl_x509...all :__)
Etc in r->notes or elsewhere.
Dw
