| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:27 |
alkemann |
why change? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:25 |
AD7six |
seem ok? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:25 |
AD7six |
users plugin schema: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/1054466554 old_passwords to allow us to transparently change from current md5 -> sha1 without affecting users |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:16 |
alkemann |
ok |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:16 |
AD7six |
design for no joins across <big fence> and we're golden :) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:15 |
AD7six |
so user + profile < big fence > (role|user_profile|aname) + rest of app data |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:15 |
AD7six |
it's in the current bakery's schema because the bakery was the first app but it's entirely generic. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:14 |
AD7six |
alkemann: look at the current bakery profiles table |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:14 |
alkemann |
AD7six: think the plugin is a bit greedy if it also claims UserProfile |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:14 |
AD7six |
ADmad: so I could during this conversation (effectively) refer to both with a different name |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:14 |
ADmad |
nvm.. its user_profiles in the AD7six's schema |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:13 |
AD7six |
but each app needs something to point at a user and hold the app's settings etc. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:13 |
ADmad |
why is it not user_profiles :) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:13 |
AD7six |
user_profile is maybe the wrong name. in the users _plugin_ would be users and profiles. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:12 |
AD7six |
any (other) suggestions |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:12 |
AD7six |
alkemann: that's what I'm currently thinking |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:11 |
alkemann |
and each of these apps have a separate users_profile model instead? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:11 |
AD7six |
yes, or designed to be so. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:11 |
alkemann |
a plugin that is installed in all cakephp.org apps? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:11 |
AD7six |
thats a lot slimmer than the current bakery's users table |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:10 |
AD7six |
alkemann: there must be a users table, it's just not on the app side of things. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:10 |
alkemann |
we* |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:10 |
alkemann |
have have a users table then? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:09 |
AD7six |
afais |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:09 |
AD7six |
and.. that's all that would be needed in the users table: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/50458369 |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:07 |
AD7six |
since it's currently seemingly fluid I left as is |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:07 |
AD7six |
role would be the equivalent of group_id in the spec doc |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:06 |
alkemann |
ADmad: yes |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:06 |
AD7six |
ADmad: I added this as a start point http://thechaw.com/forks/AD7six/bakery/commits/view/7bc18220ca9167ebaf4428d9eefeea5e22852561#highlight |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:06 |
ADmad |
alkemann: you only started with cake 1.2 i guess ;) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:05 |
ADmad |
we definately need to seperate permissions/roles from users so that specs needs to be updated anyways |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:04 |
alkemann |
i didnt know acl had a little brother. i just dont want to use a sledgehammer when a pencil is required |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:04 |
AD7six |
what about the future and extensibility for example |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:04 |
AD7six |
personally I'm very "if there's something in the core to use - use it" |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:03 |
jperras |
if the consensus is that we want to go with the one in the spec, I'm fine with that. I simply want to raise that flag. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:02 |
jperras |
even so, I just don't get why we'd want to write something that already exists and works |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:02 |
ADmad |
but if its almost identical to ini based acl as you guys say (i have never used it) then maybe we can use that |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:01 |
ADmad |
jperras: this "whole permission system" is barely half a dozen lines of code ;) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 15:01 |
alkemann |
jperras: pretty sure all the code is there in the specc. what writing do you mean? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 14:59 |
jperras |
I'm just trying to prevent us from writing a whole permissions system + testing when one is available that does exactly what we want |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 14:59 |
markstory |
has some issues with Auth, but barring that its ninja fast. |