On Mar 23, 3:00 pm, Mark Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: > Didn't Robin say this was alpha,alpha,alpha? ;o)
Yup he did say that... > All sounds pretty nifty though - good luck with it all. To anyone was there will know that there was some discussion after the end of the PUG surounding what framework is best for me; how do you choose which one of the many to invest your time in? But the promise of what galaxy can be and the ability that it currently has - really struck a chord with me and seems to provide an appropriate avenue for us to wrap our old application up and treat it as a service for our new versin to consume. Robin and I have had a quick phone call since and he did point out that I didn't require Galaxy at all to the "wrapping" - but we have discussed it in house a fair bit over the last couple days and everyone sees it as being something to invest time into. Hopefully by the time it makes it out of alpha, we'll know all there is to know about it. We'll have managed to contribute to it and finally, We'll have allowed ourselves to provide a workable roadmap towards abonding our dodgy old code-base and having an appropriately architected application that inherently lends itself to code-reuse and scalabaility. I'm sure there will be pitfalls and setbacks - and I'll be certan to share and ask for help! > 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() > 2010www.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.
