Re: [SL] new session procedure
Brought to you by:
dsimader
From: Tom D. <td...@ro...> - 2006-09-08 21:49:48
|
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > On 9/7/06, Gavin Carr <ga...@op...> wrote: >> Dieter, would it be difficult to (as an alternative) to support >> external authentication i.e. delegate the authentication to apache, >> and on the SL side just trust the REMOTE_USER environment variable, >> and bypass the SL authentication if this is set? > > One of our goals in LedgerSMB is to have a plugable authentication > scheme and probalby support LDAP and Kerberos (HTTP Basic Auth would > be fairly simple too). It requires a bit of re-wireing, but not too > much. Once we have it rolled out, anyone working on SL is more than > welcome to re-use the code. I suspect in the early days of the fork, > moving code from LedgerSMB to SL will be fairly easy, but will get > harder as the projects diverge. We will try to provide an easy > migration path from SL to LedgerSMB for as long as we can. How come you insist on answering questions not asked? Unless my eyes decieve me the question was addresses to Dieter wrt to SL. I did not see anything asking about what you intend to do with LedgerSMB, yet you insist on providing an advertisment to your fork. Has this list been turned into the LedgerSMB mailing list. ALL OF THIS IS GETTING OLD. We understand the problem, now PLEASE stop whining and either return to talking about constructive issues with SL or move on to your own list and continue to trash SL there if you prefer. We get the point that you are forking SL. Good luck with that! That is the beauty of open source. Regards, -- Tom Diehl td...@ro... Spamtrap address mt...@ro... |