On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 04:02:25AM -0300, Gonzalo Diethelm wrote: > If you can package it so that: > > * it compiles with HEAD, > * it is pluggable and configurable via TR.props, > * it provides the following implementations: DB-based (traditional > Turbine style), XML-based and null (that is, no security, > everything is allowed), > > then I would heartily stand by it as a Next Generation security > service. Even more, I would push for having the null > implementation as Turbine's default.
I'm in initial agreement, though dan.envoisolutions.com isn't responding, so I can't give the API a more careful look. But if enough people like it, there is no reason Turbine (or more appropriately Fulcrum :-) can't have more than one security solution. Granted it'd be fragmented, but competition is a good thing, and the one with the most support/users could always win out in the end as the other is deprecated. - Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
