Default config for DPAE::Provider::DBIC
Dear all, I'm in the process of improving the docs for Dancer2::Plugin::Auth::Extensible::Provider::DBIC, and have just realised that I chose some poor defaults for the configuration. I'd like to fix this, but I realise that it has the potential to break people's code. I'd like to get a feel for whether anyone actually uses the defaults though, to see whether this is likely to be a problem. I suspect that nobody will be using the defaults, hence the desire to change them. The 3 settings are "users_table", "roles_table" and "user_roles_table". The defaults are currently "users", "roles" and "user_roles", but I would like to change them to "user", "role" and "user_role" respectively. This would bring them into line with standard DBIC naming practices (they are actually lower case versions of the resultset). The names of these keys are misleading, but that is another topic of conversation. Any thoughts welcome, Andy
On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 09:44 +0000, Andrew Beverley wrote:
I'm in the process of improving the docs for Dancer2::Plugin::Auth::Extensible::Provider::DBIC, and have just realised that I chose some poor defaults for the configuration.
I'd like to fix this, but I realise that it has the potential to break people's code. I'd like to get a feel for whether anyone actually uses the defaults though, to see whether this is likely to be a problem. I suspect that nobody will be using the defaults, hence the desire to change them.
The 3 settings are "users_table", "roles_table" and "user_roles_table". The defaults are currently "users", "roles" and "user_roles", but I would like to change them to "user", "role" and "user_role" respectively. This would bring them into line with standard DBIC naming practices (they are actually lower case versions of the resultset).
The names of these keys are misleading, but that is another topic of conversation.
I've realised that I can kill 2 birds with one stone here. I'll create new (better-named) configuration options with the new defaults, but leave the old ones in place undocumented (or with a note as such).
On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 15:49 +0000, Andrew Beverley wrote:
I've realised that I can kill 2 birds with one stone here. I'll create new (better-named) configuration options with the new defaults, but leave the old ones in place undocumented (or with a note as such).
Actually, that won't work. If you're using the defaults, then you're not putting anything in the config file... As such, my intention is to change the defaults. Like I say, I'd be surprised if anyone is using the defaults because of what they are, but please shout if you think this is a problem. I'll be creating new config options to specify the "source" of each item of data (whilst leaving the old ones for backward compatibility). This will automatically generate standard resultset names etc (to reduce the amount of configuration), but each one will be able to be overridden if required.
participants (1)
-
Andrew Beverley