Al,
Figured I would chime in since there have been questions recently about the
Custom Security we posted awhile ago.
We have used Custom Security for all the projects we've done in the last six
months or more and have had good luck with it. At the very least, I am happy
not to have to fight the constant SiteMinder-configuration problems that
seems to haunt everyone.
We don't even turn SiteMinder on and I'm not sure we're even installing
Advanced Security at this point.
Here's some general comments on it:
1) There are quite a few files in the complete Custom Security package. The
developer who was working on it (Jason) pushed all the way through to the
end result of making it work in the Webtop, in the configuration scripts,
etc. That accounts for quite a few templates that didn't need to be changed
if you didn't care about the Webtop (and, actually, we generally don't use
the Webtop anyway).
2) I think for a long term solution there are some changes that will need to
be made in it. For instances, the security information is kept in memory and
accessed from there. This makes for fast access to data but would have to be
re-evaluated for sites with tons of logged in users.
3) When Mike Collins started work on it (he laid the foundation for it and
got the basics of it working on his own time before we picked it up), I
believe he set up some aspects of it to parallel rather than replace what
SiteMinder was doing which was exactly the right thing to do. By the time we
got done with it, we realized there were probably some efficiencies that
could be gained by going back through and replacing rather than
parallelling. That has not yet been done. (Mike -- correct me if I'm wrong
on the above!)
4) We are working now on an alternative, scaled-down security model that
doesn't necessarily provide all the functionality that SiteMinder should
have provided. I'm not sure we needed all that anyway. In other words, we
are not actively working on a second release of Custom Security itself right
now. I think in the next couple of months we'll have a better idea of the
scaled-down version of security and whether it is more appropriate (and how
well it might move forward into the future of the COAPI). But I did have
someone go through and adapt it for 1.5.1 which didn't take very long and
seemed to work just fine.
5) I haven't received feedback about others using custom security. That
doesn't mean they aren't out there -- I just haven't talked with anyone else
about it. (I think Mike may have some experience with other installations of
it.)
Alright, all that being said, I still take Custom Security over SiteMinder
any day of the week and many times a day when we're nearing a delivery date.
Using it, we just do not have to futz around with last minute configuration
problems and blow-ups in security. After all, there's plenty of other things
to deal with in the last minute rush of getting a project done!
Hope that helps.
David
Webworld Studios
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:11 AM
To: Spectra-Talk
Subject: RE: Please Please Please Lose SiteMinder
I too am tired of regularly performing arcane rituals to get SiteMinder
to work. :)
What is the state of Web World Studios alternative? I haven't had the
time to try it yet...
http://www.wwstudios.com/index_wws.cfm/286/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
