Re: Some docs help

On Sep 12, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

> Guyren G Howe wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry; still confused. I understand the separation you refer to,  
>> but  I don't understand how we can have a *single* (on the perm  
>> table)  auth_container value, rather than one for each auth a user  
>> might want  to use (the user table).
>>
>
> you would have multiple of course ..
>
> one row in liveuser_perm_users can map a single auth user from a  
> single auth container to a perm user id.
>
>
>> It doesn't matter if we're just authenticating against a single   
>> container, but then you wouldn't need two tables. The only reason for
>>
>
> you wouldnt need .. but we do not allow not having this table ..
>
>
>> separating this into two tables is so you can have multiple   
>> containers for a single canonical user. But if I have multiple   
>> containers, which one of them does auth_container refer to?
>>
>
> like i said .. you would have to have multiple entries. in which  
> case you would have to remove the primary key .. and you venture  
> into untested territory.

Then why not put the auth_container_name on liveuser_users, and  
everything would work fine? Put another way: the current scheme seems  
wrong. The auth_container is surely a property of the authorization,  
not of the user.