RE: Start Turbine Security Proposal Back Up (was Semi-Newbie. Is ne wapp push or pull?)

["Weaver, Scott" <Sw...@rippe.com>]

Colm,

> Scott, could you remind interested parties in how to retrieve 
> the stuff you 
> committed to CVS?

I don't think the newest (working) version of it has been commited.

Scott


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colm McCartan [mailto:colmm@owl.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:22 AM
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: Re: Start Turbine Security Proposal Back Up (was Semi-Newbie.
> Is ne wapp push or pull?)
> 
> 
> At 16:44 07/05/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > > I wouldn't mind seeing the security thing again..  I followed
> > > the security
> > > threads..  But it seemed like there where so many opinions
> > > that nothing ever
> > > was decided..  My biggest roadblock in moving to T2.2 and
> > > fully using users
> > > and security is that it seems that the Turbine user and
> > > security stuff is so
> > > inflexible that it is causing all sorts of problems tieing in
> > > the Torque
> > > objects..
> >
> >Amen, I spent a day trying to convert my t2.2 
> pre-torque/fulcrum decoupling
> >application to the decoupled version.  I ended up scrapping 
> everything and
> >restoring my original app due to the incompatibilites 
> between fulcrum's
> >Security and RunData and the same Torque issues you mentioned.
> >
> > > I would love to see contrib as well, I have a mostly 
> function NT Auth
> > > service that I would like to add..  I never published it 
> because of
> > > Turbine's really funky requirements on users, I just ended up
> > > working around
> > > Turbine (not the right way, I know!).
> >
> >If some of the original people who started security proposal 
> would be able
> >start it up again, I'd be willing to lend a hand.  And I'm sure your
> >experience with NT domain auth stuff would be greatly 
> appreciated also.
> 
> 
> There was some discussion of this at the ETC. I think Jason 
> van Zyl was 
> trying to coordinate this and he explained to us that he was 
> very keen to 
> keep the interfaces for the new security system empty so that 
> people could 
> plug in a system that suited them. I think most of the reason 
> that work 
> tailed off was that people were keen to implement their own solutions 
> rather than stick to a generic interface. (I hope you don't mind me 
> speaking for you here, Jason, but I know you're in Kenya for 
> a few weeks, 
> lucky so-and-so...)
> 
> There are some pretty nasty couplings between the torque 
> stuff and the 
> current security model so I think a T3 security framework 
> still needs a 
> fair amount of work. Last thing said on this was that there 
> was a version 
> of 2.2 with a 'cleaned-out' set of security interfaces and 
> that it would be 
> nice if people could develop against this... I believe the 
> branch tag is 
> rundata_security_changes in repo jakarta-turbine-3
> 
> Scott, could you remind interested parties in how to retrieve 
> the stuff you 
> committed to CVS?
> 
> ................................................................
> colm mccartan
> panasonic owl uk
> colmm@owl.co.uk
> (44) 131 561 1035
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> 

RE: Start Turbine Security Proposal Back Up (was Semi-Newbie. Is ne wapp push or pull?)

[Eric Pugh <ep...@upstate.com>]

So, are we saying that in the version of Turbine 2.2, that basically all the
interfaces are empty, or is that what we want to have?  It sounds from
emails like everybody basically has ditched Turbine's security interface
because they need something slightly different (like I need to auth against
NT domains).

Are these empty security/user interfaces in turbine 2.2 then?  Doesn't seem
like it from CVS, but maybe I am not looking at the right branch.  If no one
can agree on what the security/user scheme should be, maybe the solution is
to just make the user/security interfaces as simple as possible, and then
everybody can put their security scheme in a contrib/security or
contrib/user directory.  Then as time passes, and things shake out, the
various options can be refactored for the the common aspects, and more fully
flesh out the security/user scheme.

As I said before, I don't want to use Turbine security and user stuff, but I
don't want to write my own from scratch.  Having some options might lead to
the best/most popular version floating to the top!

I would rather have multiple choices versus no choice, or just turbines
current version!

My 2 cents,
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:Sweaver@rippe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:53 AM
To: 'Turbine Users List'
Subject: RE: Start Turbine Security Proposal Back Up (was Semi-Newbie.
Is ne wapp push or pull?)


Colm,

> Scott, could you remind interested parties in how to retrieve
> the stuff you
> committed to CVS?

I don't think the newest (working) version of it has been commited.

Scott


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colm McCartan [mailto:colmm@owl.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:22 AM
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: Re: Start Turbine Security Proposal Back Up (was Semi-Newbie.
> Is ne wapp push or pull?)
>
>
> At 16:44 07/05/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > > I wouldn't mind seeing the security thing again..  I followed
> > > the security
> > > threads..  But it seemed like there where so many opinions
> > > that nothing ever
> > > was decided..  My biggest roadblock in moving to T2.2 and
> > > fully using users
> > > and security is that it seems that the Turbine user and
> > > security stuff is so
> > > inflexible that it is causing all sorts of problems tieing in
> > > the Torque
> > > objects..
> >
> >Amen, I spent a day trying to convert my t2.2
> pre-torque/fulcrum decoupling
> >application to the decoupled version.  I ended up scrapping
> everything and
> >restoring my original app due to the incompatibilites
> between fulcrum's
> >Security and RunData and the same Torque issues you mentioned.
> >
> > > I would love to see contrib as well, I have a mostly
> function NT Auth
> > > service that I would like to add..  I never published it
> because of
> > > Turbine's really funky requirements on users, I just ended up
> > > working around
> > > Turbine (not the right way, I know!).
> >
> >If some of the original people who started security proposal
> would be able
> >start it up again, I'd be willing to lend a hand.  And I'm sure your
> >experience with NT domain auth stuff would be greatly
> appreciated also.
>
>
> There was some discussion of this at the ETC. I think Jason
> van Zyl was
> trying to coordinate this and he explained to us that he was
> very keen to
> keep the interfaces for the new security system empty so that
> people could
> plug in a system that suited them. I think most of the reason
> that work
> tailed off was that people were keen to implement their own solutions
> rather than stick to a generic interface. (I hope you don't mind me
> speaking for you here, Jason, but I know you're in Kenya for
> a few weeks,
> lucky so-and-so...)
>
> There are some pretty nasty couplings between the torque
> stuff and the
> current security model so I think a T3 security framework
> still needs a
> fair amount of work. Last thing said on this was that there
> was a version
> of 2.2 with a 'cleaned-out' set of security interfaces and
> that it would be
> nice if people could develop against this... I believe the
> branch tag is
> rundata_security_changes in repo jakarta-turbine-3
>
> Scott, could you remind interested parties in how to retrieve
> the stuff you
> committed to CVS?
>
> ................................................................
> colm mccartan
> panasonic owl uk
> colmm@owl.co.uk
> (44) 131 561 1035
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>