Idea: Use singular for entity permissions

[franzliedke]

E.g. ->can('read', 'post', 8) instead of ->can('read', 'posts', 8).

Or is that just overkill?

[driesvints]

You can actually just use whatever you want. You choose the resource type. Whether that's singular or plural, that's totally up to you. 

Imo it makes more sense to use plural. Edit many posts with an optional identifier for a specific post. That's why I use that example in the docs.

Perhaps I should clarify better in the docs that you can use any string you want as a resource identifier?

---

Dries Vints

Lead Developer at BeatSwitch / beatswitch.com

Laravel.IO Manager / laravel.io

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Franz Liedke notifications@github.com
wrote:

E.g. ->can('read', 'post', 8) instead of ->can('read', 'posts', 8).

Or is that just overkill?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#12

[franzliedke]

What I meant was this: Both can('read', 'post', 8) and can('read', 'posts') should come down to the same resource called "posts".

[driesvints]

Hmm, I see what you mean. I'm not sure if I want to go there.

You see, a resource type is part of the contract you define when passing resources to the Acl instance. I'd rather just handle a specific one then "guess" which one I should pick based on the input. I think it's best that you just define the type one single type and stick to that. I honestly don't see the reasoning why you should ever want 2 types for 1 resource type.

[franzliedke]

Yeah, it's not that important. Just thought this would make it even more readable. ;)