Solved Just a little permissions question

Just a question out of curiosity here. Im currently working with permissions from work, but i cant logon at home (damm you, blocking port 25565 joke). So, basicaly when reading this here (permissions from the commandbook command /give);

• - commandbook.give
• - commandbook.give.other (to give to others)
• - commandbook.give.infinite (for -1 amount)
• - commandbook.give.stacks (for > 64)
• - commandbook.give.stacks.unlimited (for > 5 stacks)

I have a couple of permissions here. I want to give them all to a group, with the most efficient way of course. What i was thinking, if i give the group the node commandbook.give.*, will they also get the permission commandbook.give? Its common sense that the rest of the group will get all the other permissions, but i was just wondering if i needed to use only commadnbook.give.*, or both that one and commadn.book.give.
Thanks in advance!

 

'permission.node.*' does not equal or include 'permission.node'
* would pretty much mean you get every permission node that begins with 'permission.node.', which does not include 'permission.node'.
Also, its pointless to worry about number of permission nodes given. It has nothing to do with performance.

 

Aboslutely agree with is not giving me extra performance, i just like my permissions file to look slick. Thanks anyway for the feedback!

 

Efficiency in processing is not what I would be concerned about. I would be concerned about troubleshooting and maintenance of the permission file as it grows.

If you use "*" nodes, you are essentially hiding permission nodes from yourself so if something happens you were not expecting, it might be due to a permission node you did not explicitly enable and thus not "visible" to you when reviewing the nodes. If you update a plugin later down the road and it includes a new permission you might not want, using the "*" permission might make it immediately available without you realizing it. But if you spell out each and every node, nothing will take you by surprise.

Another thing I did to make maintenance of my permissions easier down the road as I add/remove plugins (I have over 70+ plugins) is the use of inheritance. I was using bPermissions but needed a working inheritance system so I switched over to PermissionsEx. Now when I add a plugin, all the permissions are added together but in separate groups (arranged together in alphabetical ordering around other groups). For example, if I add plugin ABC, I will add typically 5 groups based on the plugins name. ABCOwner, ABCAdmin, ABCModerator, ABCDonor, ABCUser. All nodes will be spelled out in ABCOwner and then copied or moved to the other groups as appropriate. Sometimes they are owner-only nodes, sometimes they are user-only nodes.

I then add these groups to the associated ranks such as the ABCUser being inherited in the "default" group and the ABCOwner group being inherited in the "Owner" group.

Again, it is not about performance of the permission plugin, it will be able to handle it just fine. It is all about YOU being able to maintain the file as plugins are added, removed and updated over a long period of time. It may be months before you need to look at your permission file and it sure would be handy if it spelled things out for you and were grouped together nicely since you might forget a lot about how things were done during long absences away from the perm file.

 

Thank you for the awesome post, and im sure peeps will find this post useful