The component API doesn't give us anything there, sorry. On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 00:05, dougx <[email protected]> wrote: > oh, rely on the xmpp server to handle authentication? > > I didn't think of that external components worked that way... I was > under the impression that when an external component took over > @domain.com, all requests to that domain get sent through the > component, and it is expected to handle users, etc. ...but I could be > wrong. > > Open fire support LADP, etc. though, and that would be ideal for > managing users if there's a way to make it work. Hm... > > ~ > Doug. > > On Sep 5, 11:51 am, Joseph Gentle <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:07 PM, dougx <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 3) No user accounts .... >> >> > Very curious how wave-in-a-box is going to address (3). >> >> > Perhaps openid? >> >> > ~ >> > Doug. >> >> Bleh OpenID is really nasty to implement. >> >> Also, I think a wave server at example.com should only support users >> who can authenticate to the @example.com domain. >> >> Is (yet another) custom authentication & user database appropriate? >> (Perhaps configurable to use PAM, LDAP, etc for auth)? >> >> Does anyone know if we can the XMPP component protocol exposes the >> user database? >> >> -J > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Wave Protocol" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > >
-- Anthony Baxter, [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
