Hi Quinton, On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:33, you wrote: > Disclaimer: I want to clearly state that I am just thinking out loud > here.
... and diving head first into one of the longest standing issues in Turbine land -- the notorious Security Service. > I think that Henning makes some great headway on this issue with his > version of the security service. With his version of the security > service, the column names could change. I agree that Henning's security service is a good intermediate solution until a new improved security service arrives. It is the best solution I have seen that uses the current user, group, role and permission scheme. > It could be taken a step > further, possibly, to allow either primative or object types to be > used as well. This would eliminate most of the interface defined the > User. The idea of removing most of the methods of the security interfaces has been discussed many times on this list. The archives will reveal a sordid tale. I think the final conclusion was to use empty security interfaces and allow users to define there own custom security services, with a default implementation similar to the current security scheme (ie: user, group, role, permission). > The access counter stored in the perm hashtable could simply be moved > to its own column. I agree that this should be moved to its own column or removed altogether. An application that requires this could do it itself, rather than having Turbine do it. > Persistent pull tools... If it were not for backward compatibility, > I would say drop support. You could always start an online poll to find out how many people actually use the "persistent" scope. I know I certainly don't use it. Regards, -- Rodney -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
