I am learning Apache Shiro, and I found this article:
The New RBAC: Resource-Based Access Control
And the author said:
.......you could assign behaviors (permissions) directly to a Role if you want. In this sense, you would still have a Role-Based Access Control security policy - it is just you would have an explicit RBAC policy instead of the traditional implicit strategy.
But that begs the question - why stop at roles? You can assign behaviors directly to users, or to groups, or to anything else your security policy might allow.
It seems that the author prefer to store the relationship of User and Permission directly instead of through a Role.
Though it seems this is simple and straightforward, I have some questions:
Are there any essential differences between two of them?
The Database schema.
In a Role Based Access Control, normally we use three tables to describe the relationship:
user
role
user_role
No if I use the Resource Based Access Control, what is the normal practice for building the tables?