Well, you're not required to use WDDX, but the client scope will only accept simple data types, so you must convert the structure to a simple data type. Using WDDX is an easy way to do that.
- Jeff On 4 Jun 2002 at 14:30, Troy Murray wrote: > > So let me make sure I have this straight. If I use CLIENT VARIABLES, I cannot use >the structure > that I'm currently keeping in a SESSION VARIABLE without performing some type of WDDX > conversion back and forth? > > -T > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > My 2 cents. I think using client variables for the security aspect is great. But I >also know that > usually the bottleneck in an application are those darn database calls. Considering >this, I think it > would handicap you greatly to limit your thinking one way or the other exculsively. >I think even in a > clustered enviroments, you would benifit moving client variables that have extensive >calls to > session variables for the pupose of reading within the app. > > Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Chastain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > For the original question ... I tend to build a fuseaction (checkLogin) that I >can use > cfmodule to call and check the users credentials. That way the actual check code >is > encapsulated in the login circuit (i.e. my current circuit only needs to know >the user is > logged in, not how to check for it). With the cfmodule call, I can also put it >in individual > fuseactions rather than trying to secure a whole circuit. So far it seems to >work well and > nobody has offered a reason yet not to do so (I can already here them coming ;-)) > > On the second point, I as well have always stuck to client variables. The primary >reason is just > being lazy - I did not want to have to mess with locking session or app. variables. >I have not had > to deal with a clustered environment, but that would be a definite reason to avoid >them. I have > been debating trying session variables again now that MX does not require locking, >but my client > variables work fine - why would I need session variables? > > -- Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Timothy Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > I know the question wasn't directed at me, but as I only use client vars, I >think I can add an > answer. > > Ease of use. > > No locking. Ever. I don't feel the need to use application or server scoped >variables either. What > little I may loose by not using them, I make up for in performance. No variables >maintained in > memory, no fear of those variables getting corrupted. It's client variables, stored >in a DB for me > all the way. > > Tim. > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > Drew, > > I'm curious, other then having clustered environments, was there anything else that >lead you to > use CLIENT vs. SESSION variables? > > -T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Drew Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:49 PM > To: Fusebox List > Subject: Re: forcing user to login > > I used session then at the last Fusebox conference got hammered about questions > regarding it in the session I gave about using Fusebox for Enterprise applications > when I was talking about this security app that I had built. > Now I use a client variable, session variables are dangerous in clustered > environments. > > And to answer your question, I put mine at the top of the fbx_switch page just before > my cfswitch begins. > > -Drew Harris > > On 5/31/02 4:17 PM, "Tom Schreck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Where�s the best place to put the logic to check for the presence of a session >variable to > determine if the user should be forced to login? The session variable indicated >the user > has logged in. The absence of one indicates the user needs to login. I�ve tried >the > fbx_Setting in the root circuit, but it�s not working. > > > > Thanks - > > > > Tom Schreck > > 817-252-4900 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > I have not failed. I've found 10,000 ways that won't work. > > > > - Thomas Edison > > > ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
