Log message #536942

# At Username Text
# Feb 19th 2009, 15:28 alkemann md5.
# Feb 19th 2009, 15:28 AD7six why change what?
# Feb 19th 2009, 15:27 ADmad do we need all those messenger fields ?
# 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 ;)