Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 48 review notes
Previously Alexander Limi wrote: Does anyone have any idea what approach people like Google (Gmail etc) use for their implementation? It certainly seems like the most sensible implementation out there wrt. to end-user usability - and I'm pretty sure it scales too. Judging from how I've seen google sites behave they use something similar to how OpenID works: have a seperate authentication site which sites a domain-wide cookie which is picked by the all the application-sites. Those can verify the cookie internally and will probably cache the result. Is the session overhead a Zope-specific problem because of the implementation there, or is it something with using this approach inherently? The Zope-specific bit is that the default Zope session setup does not (by design) support Zeo clusters. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 48 review notes
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:34:33 -0700, Alec Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need to make sure that it can be easily disabled in case the performance overhead of using Sessions is too much for some applications. Does anyone have any idea what approach people like Google (Gmail etc) use for their implementation? It certainly seems like the most sensible implementation out there wrt. to end-user usability - and I'm pretty sure it scales too. Is the session overhead a Zope-specific problem because of the implementation there, or is it something with using this approach inherently? Oh, and disregard my mail reply to the SVN commit from Wichert, I should have read this list first. :) -- _ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 48 review notes
On 9/12/06, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:34:33 -0700, Alec Mitchell apm13-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need to make sure that it can be easily disabled in case the performance overhead of using Sessions is too much for some applications. Does anyone have any idea what approach people like Google (Gmail etc) use for their implementation? It certainly seems like the most sensible implementation out there wrt. to end-user usability - and I'm pretty sure it scales too. Is the session overhead a Zope-specific problem because of the implementation there, or is it something with using this approach inherently? Zope sessions are notoriously and, many think, unnecessarily heavy. Though any session setup that is ZEO-compatible is going to be even heavier. One can use pound which ties a session to to a particular ZEO client in order to avoid the extra overhead, but Zope sessions are still relatively heavy AFAIK. Alec ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
