Stephen Haberman wrote:
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
The site is back up. Why do things always go wrong when you're gone? :)

I will work on it a bit tonight and post the stuff tomorrow. Be patient as I'm still travelling through Europe on vacation. I'll be intouch in the next day or two with more info. Thanks for the positive feedback!

- Dan



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to