Rafal,
I would like to support your view for making Turbine as independent as
possible ;-)
Specifically due to the fact that in my line of work databases are either
being replaced by Ldap servers for user information or they are getting an
Ldap front end (Virtual Directory). I support any moves on making Turbine
work with Ldap.
Incidentally I did said a while back that I would be willing to assist with
Ldap interfaces, unfortunately I have not received any info as to how it is
presently implemented/supported (in Turbine) or where the source code can be
downloaded from, Rafal?
/colin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I agree that it makes sense but it may also make people easily forget
that
> > some implementation of TurbineSecurity have to treat password fields in
> > a specific way.
> > Now given than Turbine has a DBMS bias, it's just as well to give the
most
> > simple and understandable API for DBMS implementation users.
>
> I'm fighting for making Turbine security implementaion independent, but
> few
> developers seem to share my views :-(.
>
> Rafal
>
> --
> Rafal Krzewski
> Senior Internet Developer
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +48 22 8534830 http://e-point.pl
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
