sanctum

Pros of Laravel Permission

• More granular control over roles and permissions
• Supports hierarchical roles and permissions
• Provides database caching for improved performance

Cons of Laravel Permission

• Requires more setup and configuration
• Can be overkill for simple authentication needs
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Laravel Permission:

$user->givePermissionTo('edit articles');
$user->assignRole('writer');
if ($user->hasPermissionTo('edit articles')) {
    // User can edit articles
}

Sanctum:

$user->createToken('api-token')->plainTextToken;
if ($user->tokenCan('edit-articles')) {
    // User can edit articles
}

Laravel Permission offers more detailed control over user roles and permissions, allowing for complex hierarchies and granular access control. It's well-suited for applications with intricate permission structures but may be excessive for simpler projects.

Sanctum, on the other hand, provides a lightweight authentication system for SPAs, mobile apps, and simple token-based APIs. It's easier to set up and use but offers less granular control over permissions.

The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project, with Laravel Permission being more suitable for complex permission systems and Sanctum for simpler authentication requirements.

Pros of jwt-auth

• Provides more flexibility in token management and customization
• Supports multiple authentication guards and providers
• Can be used across different platforms and languages due to JWT standard

Cons of jwt-auth

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Sanctum
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to JWT
• Less integrated with Laravel's ecosystem

Code Comparison

jwt-auth:

$token = JWTAuth::attempt($credentials);
$user = JWTAuth::toUser($token);

Sanctum:

$user = User::where('email', $request->email)->first();
$token = $user->createToken('auth_token')->plainTextToken;

Key Differences

• Sanctum is designed specifically for Laravel and offers seamless integration
• jwt-auth provides more control over token structure and claims
• Sanctum supports both token and session-based authentication
• jwt-auth focuses solely on JWT-based authentication

Use Cases

• Choose Sanctum for Laravel-specific projects with simple authentication needs
• Opt for jwt-auth when working on cross-platform applications or requiring advanced JWT features

Community and Maintenance

• Sanctum is officially maintained by the Laravel team
• jwt-auth has a large community but may have less frequent updates

Performance

• Sanctum generally has lower overhead due to its tight Laravel integration
• jwt-auth may have slightly higher processing requirements for token validation

Pros of Passport

• Full OAuth2 server implementation, supporting multiple grant types
• Supports first-party and third-party API authentication
• Provides built-in support for token scopes and refresh tokens

Cons of Passport

• More complex setup and configuration
• Heavier resource usage due to its comprehensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to OAuth2

Code Comparison

Passport (API token creation):

$token = $user->createToken('Token Name')->accessToken;

Sanctum (API token creation):

$token = $user->createToken('Token Name')->plainTextToken;

Summary

Passport is a full-featured OAuth2 server implementation, offering robust authentication for both first-party and third-party applications. It provides comprehensive features like token scopes and refresh tokens but comes with a more complex setup and higher resource usage.

Sanctum, on the other hand, is a lightweight authentication system designed primarily for first-party applications. It offers a simpler setup and lower resource usage, making it ideal for SPA (Single Page Applications) and mobile apps that don't require the full OAuth2 protocol.

The choice between Passport and Sanctum depends on the specific needs of your application. If you require full OAuth2 support or third-party API authentication, Passport is the way to go. For simpler authentication needs in first-party apps, Sanctum provides a more straightforward solution.

Pros of Fortify

• Provides a complete authentication backend, including registration, password reset, and email verification
• Offers two-factor authentication out of the box
• Includes built-in views for authentication forms (can be published and customized)

Cons of Fortify

• More opinionated and less flexible than Sanctum
• Requires more setup and configuration for API authentication scenarios
• May include unnecessary features for simple API-only applications

Code Comparison

Fortify (authentication action):

use Laravel\Fortify\Actions\AttemptToAuthenticate;

public function authenticate(Request $request)
{
    return app(AttemptToAuthenticate::class)(
        $request, $this->guard
    );
}

Sanctum (token creation):

use Laravel\Sanctum\HasApiTokens;

$token = $user->createToken('token-name');
return ['token' => $token->plainTextToken];

Fortify is a comprehensive authentication package that provides a full set of features for web and API authentication. It's ideal for applications that require a complete auth solution with minimal setup.

Sanctum, on the other hand, is a lightweight package focused on API token authentication and SPA authentication. It's more flexible and easier to integrate into existing applications or those with custom authentication requirements.

Choose Fortify for full-featured auth with less customization, or Sanctum for lightweight, flexible API authentication.

Pros of php-jwt

• Framework-agnostic, can be used with any PHP project
• Lightweight and focused solely on JWT functionality
• Simple to integrate and use without additional dependencies

Cons of php-jwt

• Lacks built-in authentication and authorization features
• Requires manual implementation of token storage and management
• No out-of-the-box support for API token abilities or scopes

Code Comparison

Sanctum token creation:

$token = $user->createToken('token-name');

php-jwt token creation:

$payload = ['user_id' => $user->id];
$token = JWT::encode($payload, $secretKey, 'HS256');

Sanctum token validation:

$request->user()->tokenCan('ability');

php-jwt token validation:

$decoded = JWT::decode($token, new Key($secretKey, 'HS256'));

Summary

Sanctum is a comprehensive authentication system for Laravel, offering built-in features for API token management and SPA authentication. php-jwt, on the other hand, is a lightweight library focused solely on JWT encoding and decoding, providing more flexibility but requiring additional implementation for full authentication functionality.

Pros of Dingo API

• More comprehensive API development toolkit with features like API versioning and rate limiting
• Supports multiple authentication adapters (OAuth2, JWT, Basic Auth)
• Offers built-in response transformers for data formatting

Cons of Dingo API

• Less actively maintained compared to Sanctum
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• May be overkill for simpler API projects

Code Comparison

Dingo API route definition:

$api = app('Dingo\Api\Routing\Router');

$api->version('v1', function ($api) {
    $api->get('users', 'App\Http\Controllers\UserController@index');
});

Sanctum route definition:

Route::middleware('auth:sanctum')->get('/user', function (Request $request) {
    return $request->user();
});

Dingo API focuses on versioning and more complex routing, while Sanctum provides a simpler approach for SPA authentication. Dingo API offers more features out of the box, but Sanctum integrates more seamlessly with Laravel's ecosystem and is actively maintained by the Laravel team.