Hello, Sean!

Thursday, August 4, 2005, 8:56:37 PM, you wrote:

LS> So with MS in mind, and with the view of simplifying the groups/role
LS> usage issue, and maintaining some backward compatibility. I propose:

LS> - Allow users to have multiple roles, which are fixed (no
LS> activation/deactivation)

LS> - Allow user to login with specific/singular role (as they can today)

LS> - If user logs in without role then all the user's roles would apply.

Borland made "default role" in IB 7.5. At least in system tables.

Personally I don't like converting roles to groups this way.
As I remember, stadard says that role is used like user login.
I.e. role is another kind of user identity (role or username, not
both).
But, lot of people sees roles, and think that roles are similar
to groups. As you suggested, it is good to check current extentions
that were made in different popular RDBMS-es.

--
Dmitri Kouzmenko