Re: [binarycloud-dev] revised entity def format...

[John D. <jo...@we...>]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Alex Black wrote:

> > Wouldn't this be better accomplished with a user-definable field-type with an
> > associated I/O class..having a tag called "encrypt" seems too simplistic to
> > really provide any meaningful encryption service..
> 
> For example: we'll have systeic control over encryption settings, but I
> think it's safe to assume that a developer would want to use the same key
> length and settings for all the fields (as it would be a nightmare to
> maintain a key per field, etc)
> 
> in the entity definition, encryption is as simple as "encrypt" ... elsewhere
> we'll have very fine control over what exactly happens as a result.
> 

Cool, as long as using that tag doesn't mean you get shitty 56bit encryption
with a static salt :)


-- 

John Donagher
Application Engineer, Intacct Corp.

Public key available off http://www.keyserver.net
Key fingerprint = 4024 DF50 56EE 19A3 258A  D628 22DE AD56 EEBE 8DDD