On 8 Dec 2003, at 14:31, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Upayavira dijo:
Is it more useful to return a UserHandler than a boolean? The auth.js
code is experimental, and can thus be changed. If you can supply a
usecase as to why it should be changed, personally, I'd say go ahead and
commit a change. It is good to have real users using the code, as what I
came up with was just a first iteration.
My use-case was that I wanted to read values from the authentication XML in my 'login' script, because we needed to see certain values (eg. the user's full name) outside of the security zone. I read the values I need and set them as Session Attributes.
A much better way of handling that IMHO would be to use a FlowScript based authentication pipeline, and set up the Session there. This unfortunately is still alluding us, we still get bizarre errors (null FOM_Request etc.) when attempting this, after much research ..... we now only get it the 2nd time someone logs in =:'( (deeply weird).
Another thing I have done to the flow-auth-fw is to Woodify it ..... maybe you'd be more interested in that?
Hmm... I think this kind of changes will break the authentication for people that already use it (I am one of them). I prefer to first talk about this change and if it is OK. Make the change.
Is this OK?
No offence Antonio , but is it a Sample or an API ? :)
It is an unstable API. Look at the comment at the top of the auth.js file: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, or something like that.
Therefore we can change it. Fair enough discuss the changes, but it IS NOT FINISHED, and needs polishing by people who are actually using it. Right now, thats you guys. (I implemented the auth.js and a sample, but have ended up doing auth my own way).
Regards, Upayavira
But I am perfectly happy to discuss any changes that might be made ....
regards Jeremy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
