On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Helen Borrie wrote:

> >Sorry, but I don't think I got the idea behind roles right.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. What was your idea?

My idea was that a role is similar to a "usergroup".
If a user is granted a role's privilege, it is granted
to use each of these privileges, too.
That's how it basically works in firebird, but
that you need to provide the role you want to _use_
(IMHO it's more of a passive action to be granted privileges)
is kinda strange...

It's just that I'm used to
"You perform an action and the ``admin'' will look up if you have
enough privileges to do so", not "You have to tell me which of
your privileges you want to use to perform this action".

And it's actually pretty unhandy, if you need to reconnect to
the database to perform a certain task under a new role.

Can someone explain why this approach was used in SQL, instead
of a more simple solution?

thanks,
Daniel `has to rearrange his usermanagement' Albuschat

--
eat(this); // delicious suicide