On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, [UTF-8] Branko Ä^Libej wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:54, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I suspect Branko is probably right, that we will one day need an
> >>opaque type instead of a 'char *'. That doesn't seem like a very
> >>risky projection.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually, I'm coming to the conclusion that it makes no sense. Are we
> >really going to have a bunch of ACLs in the FS referring to a group
> >database outside the FS? If two different callers use different group
> >databases, they'll get different permission behavior?
> >
> >
> We have exactly the same problem with user authentication today. The
> three RA methods each have a different way for authenticating the user.
> It's always been the repository admin's responsibility to keep them in sync.
>
And being able to choose an external user/group database is very useful
IMO. If you have 20 systems, you don't want to duplicate this information
20 times. This has to be system and site dependent.
BTW, I aggree with brane that an abstract authentication token should be
added now. It's not over-engineering, just a little fore-sight.
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 5 22:59:28 2004