3 ms·
> 2- Use my own tables. If managing data directly and personally is a requirement for you, then you probably don't want these tools. Part of the reason they ex
by eropple 6y ago
> 2- Use my own tables.
If managing data directly and personally is a requirement for you, then you probably don't want these tools. Part of the reason they exist is to manage user data (passwords, tokens, etc.) correctly and with minimal surprises.
ORY Kratos, as an example, will happily create different conceptual types of users and you can store arbitrary data in those user documents, but it is modified through an API and exposes to you stable IDs against which you can code the rest of your application.
- mamcx 6y agoThe problem is that this tables are like "foreign" to the db, in a micro-service mindset (the worst anti-pattern to date!). That is a major complication. In Django, this solve neatly, because I can point to my own table or easily integrate the ones of Django without much fuss. This turn all this in a non-issue.
- eropple 6y agoYes, they're foreign to your application's database. That's the point: by using these tools you're buying into a service-oriented architecture. What you are advocating is to collapse the service-oriented architecture into a "everybody parties on the database" architecture. These tools are very much invested in you not doing that. There already exist user-auth libraries for what you want and run inside your application itself.
- hc-taway 6y ago> ORY Kratos, as an example, will happily create different conceptual types of users and you can store arbitrary data in those user documents, but it is modified through an API and exposes to you stable IDs against which you can code the rest of your application. The stable-ID solution was how I handled this when I wrote one of these as an internal tool (guess you'd call it a "microservice") for a startup I worked for back in like 2010. In hindsight I guess I should have pushed to pivot to selling that as our product since we ended up selling the company for barely-pay-back-the-investors money, but who knew? Hahaha. Also identified permissionable-objects as UUIDs, which let me handle authorization in addition to authentication. Creating a new "permission" object meant asking for one from the service, then you'd receive a UUID, associate that with whatever thing you were applying the permissions to on your end, and tell the service to assign the desired permissions. Then you could just query the permissions for that UUID (which could, potentially, represent a bundle of items, a single item, or permissions to an entire service—how to interpret it was left up to the consuming service) and of course cache them as much as you felt was proper. IIRC there as also a concept of owning-objects so you could let permissions be inherited, then override on a case-by-case basis, plus it'd let you ask which objects belonged to a given collection. IIRC I used that to represent organizations, too, since they were basically the same thing as a permissionable-object container themselves needing to be permissionable. Not a perfectly-flexible system (billions of items that all need distinct permissions might have eventually forced sharding or something, but luckily we didn't have to worry about that) but it was rock solid for our purposes and made spinning up new services or products sharing login with our main product super-easy.
- mamcx 6y agoWhat is a "stable IDs"?