Well my current [local] services-config.xml is set to allow "public" 
invocations and the file on my remote server contains the following:

[C:\CFusionMX7\wwwroot\WEB-INF\flex\services-config.xml]
<method-access-level>remote</method-access-level>

Now, all my Flex applications that I am compiling locally are able to 
access "public" methods on my remote server... is this not the 
instance of the file I should be configuring?  If this is the file 
which is _supposed_ to control access, it certainly isn't doing a 
very good job.

thanks,
Geoff







--- In [email protected], "Derrick Anderson" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> " Anyone who is compiling Flex applications with a local services-
> config.xml can control whether THEY want to access MY remote or
> public methods... that can't be right."
> 
> no, it's not- the settings that are in the file you use to compile 
against
> are not hard-wired into the compiled app, if your server file has 
settings
> that say not to allow execution of public methods, that's what 
happens,
> regardless of the services-config.xml that was used in compiling.  
That's
> how i understand it to work anyway- anybody who knows different 
feel free to
> correct me.
> 
> what seems to be important though is the 'path' to the services-
config file
> used in your compiler arguments.  it looks at that path on the 
server to see
> where the services-config file is, then whatever you have set in
> <method-access-level> is what is used.
> 
> i don't even have CF installed on my development box, only a copy of
> services-config.xml in the same path as it is on the server, so 
that when i
> compile and send it to the server it all works.
> 
> i agree that it's confusing and there must be a better way or some 
much
> better documentation for how all that stuff works.
> 
> On 10/29/07, geoffreymina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   OK, I am not using FDS or CFMX8 so I guess the config is all 
done in
> > the services-config.xml file. The problem I have with that is the
> > fact that we are talking about a client side compiler file which 
is
> > supposed to control server side security... seems like an 
extremely
> > flawed model!
> >
> > Anyone who is compiling Flex applications with a local services-
> > config.xml can control whether THEY want to access MY remote or
> > public methods... that can't be right. The crossdomain.xml is
> > certainly not a solution because of the ability to spoof DNS...
> >
> > So basically what this comes down to is that if I want to run my
> > Flex2Gateway, every public method on my system is exposed to the
> > world. Or am I missing something much larger...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Geoff
> >
> > --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%
40yahoogroups.com>, "Derrick
> > Anderson"
> > <no.way.this.is.in.use@> wrote:
> > >
> > > services-config.xml is the right file, i think remoting-config 
is
> > for when
> > > using LCDS but i'm not really sure on that, look for
> > >
> > > <method-access-level>remote</method-access-level>
> > >
> > > in your destination definition.
> > >
> > > On 10/26/07, geoffreymina <geoffreymina@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the answer. I only have the services-config.xml
> > where is
> > > > the remoting-config.xml file? Is this server side, or client 
side?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%
40yahoogroups.com><flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >
> > João
> > > > Fernandes
> > > > <joaopedromartinsfernandes@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > by default you can only invoke remote functions, not public
> > ones. To
> > > > > allow public functions to be called from a flex front-end 
you
> > need to
> > > > > change de configuration of the ColdFusion destination.
> > > > > Check the remoting-config.xml if you have the method-access-
> > level
> > > > > property set to remote. To allow both public and remote this
> > value is
> > > > > set to 'public and remote'.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > João Fernandes
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.onflexwithcf.org
> > > > > http://www.riapt.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
>


Reply via email to