Richard and Kevin and Xavier, Even though we are not in the medical industry, many of our products are used in medical and pharmaceutical applications. Internet security is a very high priority for us. We may be the only customer of Runtime who has this requirement. It is not a developer design issue because we must authenticate for any internet URL via any out of the box browser (Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, etc.). I have proven that it CAN work for our firewall conditions if the USER:PASS@ is simply passed along in the URL. How difficult would it be to add that as a preference item. If it is empty, put empty into it's variable, else populate it and everything works for me, for my colleagues, and also for everyone else who may work in a less restricted environment.
I do this for all the apps that I create and they work fine inside or outside the firewall. A few of the folks on this list have adopted this behavior in their software projects (like RevZilla and Scripters Scrapbook), and those apps work great for me as well as for everyone else. I asked them NOT to do this just for little ole' me, and they responded that if it is happening to one person, it is likely there will be others. So the choice was to include about 5 pro-active lines of code to insure usability. My purchase of Revolution was for work. I simply want to use all of it's functionality while at work, and Rev-Online could be crucial in training new developers which in turn could increase Runtime's sales of their product. If we, the users can make it work, why can't/shouldn't it be integrated into the IDE? The recipe for it's success has already been proven. Roger Eller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>As major corporations tighten their internet security, RunRev needs to >>support all authentication methods. As it stands, the learning center is >>not accessible for me even though we have paid for it with the Enterprise >>license fee. I have reported this to Bugzilla many many months ago >>(bug#1962 - opened on 8/10/2004). I have heard nothing since. Do I also >>need to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] even though it is in bugzilla? > > I agree that supporting the widest variety of security mechanisms is > useful, but if a network requires the addition of "<login>:<password>" > to a URL that seems more of a developer design issue than an engine > ehancement. Or more specifically, I'm not sure how an engine > enhancement would address that. > > FWIW, I've been working on a system used by more than 20 doctors in a > wide variety of hospitals, and while hospital IT folks are generally > among the most concerned about security our app is working successfully > in all of them. > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Fourth World Media Corporation _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
