Alex Peshkov wrote:

>Alexandre Benson Smith wrote:
>
>
>>How cotteries should be managed ?
>>It will be per database ? per server ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I think they should be stored in security database. That means for fb2.0
>- per server. For vulcan - up to configuration.
>
>
>

ok

>>The data should reside insede the database ?
>>
>>
>>
>yes
>
>
>

ok

>>or should have some config file (cotteries.conf) ?
>>
>>
>>
>no-no-no
>
>

ok :-)

>
>
>>Or will be just a field in the RDB$USERS ? or even a tbale RDB$COTTERIES that has a FK to RDB$USERS ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>This depends upon should we limit maximum number of coteries per user or
>not. If yes, and this will be fixed unconfigurable numer, I prefer array
>in RDB$USERS. In all other cases - separate table is needed.
>
>
>

I prefer a table, why impose a limit ?

>>if it will be stored inside the database in system tables, users could update it as wish using simple SQL no need to an API call.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>No - in firebird 2.0. Users can't access security database directly,
>only via special API calls. This is first security barrier.
>
>

ok

>And then - how do you suppose will it look in GUI clients? Browse table
>RDB$COTTERIES ? :)
>
>

or just select * from RDB$COTTERIES in ISQL
For sure the GUI developers will make a good and easy interface for it
no matters how it is stored ;-)

>If we want to implement feature, let's do it well.
>
>
>

Agreed, just trying to easy your job :-)

>I suggest to have additional spb_ parameters spb_add_cotery /
>spb_remove_cotery, understandable during user modification
>(spb_add_cotery also during user creation).
>
>

spb_add_cotery should be mandatory in user creation ?

>gsec should also have appropriate switches to add/remove cotery, but I
>have no idea how should they be called.
>Something like:
>gsec mod username -cot_add 192.168.3.0/24
>gsec mod username -cot_remove 192.168.3.0/24
>
>

gsec mod username -c[ottery] add 192.168.3.0/24
gsec mod username -c[ottery] remove 192.168.3.0/24

>but I'm sure better names exist.
>isc_user_* family of API calls were deprecated in interbase 6, therefore
>I suugest NOT to add coteries management to this ancient API.
>
>

Can't go so deep :-(

But if it is deprecated it should not be touched.

>Alex.
>
>
>

but the way the right way to spell it is coterie or cotterie ? I have
looked for a translation to portuguese and did not found it. Searched in
wikipedia and got a link to The Cotery a group of aristocrats in England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coterie

sounds like VIP to me.

see you !

--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br