Send modauthtkt-users mailing list submissions to
modauthtkt-users@lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/modauthtkt-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of modauthtkt-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Patch] Allow use behind mod_proxy (Gavin Carr)
2. Re: [Patch] Allow use behind mod_proxy
(Garrett, Philip (MAN-Corporate))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:47:47 +1100
From: Gavin Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [modauthtkt-users] [Patch] Allow use behind mod_proxy
To: modauthtkt-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:22:50AM -0500, Garrett, Philip (MAN-Corporate) wrote:
> Gavin Carr wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> That brings me to my other question - is there any reason that
> >> AuthSecret couldn't be per-directory?
> >
> > No, there isn't. It's primarily a legacy thing, though it seems to be
> > the way most people use it. It will probably stay per-host for
> > backwards compatibility reasons, but we've talked about adding a
> > TKTAuthDirSecret directive that would take precedence. No one's done
> > implemented it yet though.
>
> Would it break backwards compatibility to accept the secret at multiple
> levels with the same AuthSecret param?
I don't believe apache will let you can add directives at both levels.
Otherwise that would be a great solution.
Cheers,
Gavin
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:50:36 -0500
From: "Garrett, Philip \(MAN-Corporate\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [modauthtkt-users] [Patch] Allow use behind mod_proxy
To: "Gavin Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<modauthtkt-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Gavin Carr wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:22:50AM -0500, Garrett, Philip
> (MAN-Corporate) wrote:
>> Gavin Carr wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> That brings me to my other question - is there any reason that
>>>> AuthSecret couldn't be per-directory?
>>>
>>> No, there isn't. It's primarily a legacy thing, though it seems to
>>> be the way most people use it. It will probably stay per-host for
>>> backwards compatibility reasons, but we've talked about adding a
>>> TKTAuthDirSecret directive that would take precedence. No one's done
>>> implemented it yet though.
>>
>> Would it break backwards compatibility to accept the secret at
>> multiple levels with the same AuthSecret param?
>
> I don't believe apache will let you can add directives at both levels.
> Otherwise that would be a great solution.
Mod_perl does it somehow, e.g. PerlSetVar. If I have some extra time
this week, I'll look into providing a patch.
Regards,
Philip
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
modauthtkt-users mailing list
modauthtkt-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/modauthtkt-users
End of modauthtkt-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7
**********************************************
