Didn't Robin say this was alpha,alpha,alpha? ;o) All sounds pretty nifty though - good luck with it all.
Mark On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Gavin Baumanis <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > As a result of the Melbourne CFUG meeting last week, the company I > work for has decided to some development work with Robins Galaxy code. > > The use-case we have for wanting to use it two fold. > Wrap an existing application into a service and consume that in a > brand new aplication. > and lastly to increase the modularity of our current application. > > The last point we already do for the most part. > We write patient Management Software that is used in New Zealand and > Australia. > For the most part the applications are the same but there are some > significant differences between the two locations. > > Thankfully, we already have a separate Administration application for > each install. > We have a separate referral application for each install, etc. > But this separation was more by fluke than good design and is internal > to each install of the overall application package. > So, for example, we have 15 copies of the referral application - one > for each install. > > By being service oriented, we hope to replace the 15 versions of the > referral application with two (one for AU and one for NZ). > > Similarly we hope to replace the authentication processes used by our > application into a single authentication service that can be wired > into any of our applications and we thought that this service would be > a good candidate for us to use as our learning tool. > > The reason for writing here is; > a) Lift the profile of the Galaxy OS project > b) Solicit input into what people see as being required in the > authentication service. > > Currently we're thinking of; > - allow user authentication via DB username / password matching > - as above but with LDAP > - as above but with OpenId > > So our user authentication public method would have an argument for > authentication type and then subsequent arguments that would be > required for each of the suppoted authenticated types and it would > simply return a boolean for whether or not the authentication was > successful. > > There is also a requirement around expired passwords / grace logins / > intruder detection etc for directory servies enabled authentication > methods. > > And if we get around to supporting Openid - then a simple boolean is > not an appropriate return. > > We already have the code for this (LDAP / grace login testing / > processing) - but is it appropriate to place this code in the service > or is that best left in the "home" application. > > And, of course - certainly please feel free to comletely disagree - we > don;t pretend to have all the answers. > > Gavin. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "cfaussie" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<cfaussie%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. > > -- E: [email protected] T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com Hands-on ColdFusion ORM Training @ cf.Objective() 2010 www.ColdFusionOrmTraining.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
