I completely agree. Even more so to the idea, is to have a engine which is a hub for choice. Allowing you to configure which authentication schema you would like to use.
Whether its ActiveRBAC, acts_as_authenticated, acl_system, user_engine, or login_engine, depending on whether you want just authentication, or ACL as well. The Authentication Engine would serve as a communication mechanism between all the different plugins out there, providing a single, cohesive API which is standard no matter which authentication system you use. Even if you have you own home-brew authentication system, you could write a hook into the authentication_engine. I just created the ferret_engine, which will be released soon, that another engine I have created, the toolbawks_engine, interfaces with. I have created them quite tightly integrated, based on a configuration option in the toolbawks_engine, that turns on/off the ferret_engine functionality. One of the ideas that James and I have been discussing, is an API for each of the engines, allowing each engine to communicate with another Engine. This API, in my opinion, would be absolutely best served with a local Web Service gateway. Which would provide the obvious later growth into having it as a public web service, allowing things such as the ferret_engine be able to be searched on by remote or even local disseparate applications. This is definitely the way I want to go as far as engines API are concerned. It provides extreme flexibility when it comes to communication of functionality. For instance, if we create the Engine API using a standardized web service architecture, future systems such as the authentication_engine would be able to communicate with other Engines, such as the upcoming Toolbawks Engine, or Ferret Engine (to make sure they have access to search that content) with a very simplistic manner. I haven't yet got much experience building Web Services, but I know enough high-level that this is the way to go, we just need to make it happen. -Nb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nathaniel S. H. Brown http://nshb.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Corbin > Sent: March 4, 2006 2:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Engine-users] Engines Collaboration [was: DRY > and engines] > > > I would like to have people's input about it: does anybody > feel that > > it could be worth to implement an inter-engine communication? > > Ideas? > > I'd rather see a standardized interface where an engine can > access authentication or authorization information. > > Can you give a concrete example of what you're thinking of > with inter-engines communication? > > David > _______________________________________________ > engine-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-users-rails > -engines.org > _______________________________________________ engine-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-users-rails-engines.org
