@larry I added bitmask permissions to
https://github.com/tuhlmann/permissions together with a set of unit tests
and a description in Readme. Please have a look if you like.
I don't think I will ever use it as I'm quiet content with the literal
approach. But it was an interesting exercise to separa
My suggestion of a bitmask was just a response to a suggestion of prime
factorization for encoding roles in an integer. I think using a set is just
fine. The space requirements for a small set of keywords is negligible in
the larger scheme of things. It also permits more readable code (always a
It might be premature optimization, or you could view it as a different
approach, for a different usage scenario.
I'm myself pretty content with the literal approach, we're using this in a
fairly large application and haven't experienced any problems with regards
of performance or amount of data at
Hi,
Doesn't that feel like premature optimization to you, too? Bitmasks are
much harder to read than sets with spelled out roles and I wonder if the
performance gain is really worth that. And it poses a limit of 64 roles. I
have seen several enterprise applications that had far more than 64 r
I see to add that feature over the weekend @larry.
I'm using this role model together with the excellent buddy-auth library.
larry google groups schrieb am Mi., 12. Okt.
2016 um 19:12 Uhr:
> >That would only get 64 states into a 64 bit Long, but was always enough.
>
> The bitmask idea is good. I
>That would only get 64 states into a 64 bit Long, but was always enough.
The bitmask idea is good. I agree there are always tradeoffs. A number is
less readable, but more efficient. I would be happy if there was a small
library that did just (roles/permissions), and which I could compose with
Thanks for the comments!
@larry I was reminded by your comment at how I used to use bitmasks before,
like @adrian commented.
That would only get 64 states into a 64 bit Long, but was always enough. I
have no performance data on prime number sieves but I suspect that would
take longer than checking
If you wanted to do something more efficient, why not just use a bitmask?
That is far more efficient than prime factorization.
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:06:19 AM UTC-4, larry google groups
wrote:
>
> A minor pet peeve of mine, but is it possible to attach prime numbers to
> the roles,
A minor pet peeve of mine, but is it possible to attach prime numbers to
the roles, and to then decipher the roles from the factors of the total?
Using strings or keywords for permissions often strikes me as inefficient.
Assuming:
create -- 2
read -- 3
update -- 5
delete -- 7
bulk-erase --
