On (1): I haven't looked at the Lift role model, but obviously I need to do that. Anyone know a good book on the topic? ;-)
On (2): It might not be a bad idea to run the entire authorization model off of pools. Some food for thought: Why not just have a whole namespace of pools that is locked to LDAP authorization groups? Why not manage ESME authorizations (when we actually have some) through the pools? We could have it be a configuration property to specify the pool associated with the admin role and privileges. If the deployment setup warranted, the admin role could be mapped to a pool created based on an LDAP authorization group. On the other hand, my thoughts on (2) might be a really bad idea. Authorization models are not my area. I'm much more up to speed on the authentication side. Ethan On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > There are two points that we have to consider: > 1) there is also a role model that is present in lift > 2) how would we integrate the idea of authorization groups if we had > access to ldap (my favored solution) > (http://jgoday.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/lift-ldap/) - although here > the problem may the association with MegaProtoUser > > The use of the superuser is probably the easiest way to get started > with such an api but the two other means above are probably better in > the long-term. > > By the way, if we had a ldap solution, then we might have to rethink > our pool administration, but first things first. ... > > D. > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sounds ideal as long as someone familiar with the user model (not me >> :-) can confirm that this column is being used in this manner. >> >> If it's not being used at all at the moment, then I could start >> building admin functions on top of it, but we'll find ourselves in a >> situation in which you can do things through the API that you can't do >> through the ui. >> >> There are also the questions of how the first super-user is added and >> whether we want more granular access controls around administrative >> functions. The later is probably a question for the future. >> >> Ethan >> >> On Saturday, December 19, 2009, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Just saw the column "superuser" in the "users" table. >>> >>> Maybe this could be used to determine if user have special rights >>> during administrative functions for our APIs. >>> >>> D. >>> >> >
