whenever Hal decides his thoughts on Security are complete and he enlightens the rest of us peons :)
Version 20 will also allow full separation of circuit's physical location from its virtual location, so you can have circuits anywhere on the physical drive, in any direction from the home circuit of the app, and to define the order in which you want to inherit. By doing so we also recover the "multi-aliased" circuits that I'd started using about a year ago with XFB and then had to drop with FB3. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Nunamaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Secure.cfm When is that going to be release?? :) -----Original Message----- From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 4:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Secure.cfm heck, wait till you see version 20! -----Original Message----- From: Nando [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Secure.cfm I'm not 100% on this, but if you study the techspedition core a bit, you'll notice Hal's got some code in there relating to security / permissions. These guys have nearly got the marketing through mystery gig aced. ;-) No? R Vosmeer wrote: > Does this mean there is a new tag coming? > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: 30 May 2002 04:42 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: Secure.cfm > > I think it's worth waiting the extra few weeks until Hal's new stuff > is released. I found it significantly easier to understand than the > what was proposed last summer. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ney Andr� de Mello Zunino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:33 PM > Subject: Re: Secure.cfm > > > John Beynon wrote: > > > As for Hal's proposal becoming part of the fusebox spec, it could > > happen but I think it's more likely to become a 'best practices' - I > > know he's got something new up his sleeve at the moment. Since > > everyone has their own stand point on security coming up with a > > 'standard fusebox' methodology would be a huge challenge. > > Understood. > > Anyway, assuming that I wish to follow Hal's proposal, is the > implementation of the code that should be responsible for traversing > the circuit path (reading the FBX_Permissions.cfm files and updating > the fusebox.permissions structure along the way) available somewhere > or would I have to write my own? > > > And yes, apart from hard coding your userpermissions, looks like > > you're on the right lines, > > > There ya go, I answered all your questions, > > Thank you :) > > -- > Ney Andr� de Mello Zunino > Media and Technology Laboratory > Campus Computing Centre > United Nations University > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
