Thread: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion
Brought to you by:
cfjedimaster
Menu
▾
▴
blogcfc-develop
|
From: Ray, S. <SR...@Pe...> - 2003-07-31 15:56:00
|
I don't personally like the idea of managing users in a text file. That could get tedious. Though it'd be more work, I'd rather have them in the database, and have a module to manage them. If you keep them in the ini file, then you'll have to manage those user roles per blog in the ini file, too, right? I would go db with this stuff. And can't you dynamically set the DSN based on the blog that gets requested? Steve |
|
From: William N. S. <Wil...@hk...> - 2003-07-31 16:19:23
|
Is it absolutely necessary to have the user management IN the CFC? If
not...Then you can have each blog in it's own directory and own
application.cfm file that can set the id of the blog there. And then you
can handle the user aspects inside the application.cfm (logging in assigning
roles etc) That would let the Blog.cfc just worry about BLOG stuff - still
assigning roles to methods, but it would worry about WHO was logged in as
admin...just along as they were. Doing this would require the actual
passing of the blog id to each function...but that shouldn't be a huge
issue...should it?
I haven't thought this all the way through...but to me it seems the less
that is tied directly to the blog.cfc the more flexible it becomes. Which
kinda goes with the earlier comments about the db support.
I hope that all made sense...
-william
-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:ra...@ca...]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:31 AM
To: blo...@li...
Subject: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion
Ok, to start the ball rolling, let's start the first big discussion.
This is already in the tracker, but it's important enough for me to
bring out here.
Currently to 'setup' the blog, you run a sql script and then edit an ini
file.
Currently the blog supports one blog per DSN.
The goal is to allow 2 big changes:
N blogs per 1 DSN.
N users per 1 DSN. (To allow for group blogs.)
This means a variety of things.
We need the concept of blogs on a DSN.
We need the concept of assigning user Foo to blog A.
Many questions come from this:
First, do we continue to use the ini file? The problem with this is that
when I add my blog to your DSN, I don't know the new primary key
generated. This can be corrected a variety of ways. One way is to just
do a look up. When you work with blog("foo"), we simply do a lookup in
the constructor and remember foo is ID=X. If you cache your blog, this
is very trivial. We can even make it so that when foo doesn't exist, it
auto inserts.
But then user management is still a pain. Do I do something like this in
my ini file
[foo]
users=jedimaster,goober,doober
If so - where do I store the passwords? Do I use a list within a list?
users=jedimaster:password,goober:password2
This is a major security hole if someone reads blog.ini.
So what I'm thinking is that we need to drop the ini file. I like the
ini file a lot, but if everything is web based, then we can alleviate
some of these worries. However, we still need an ini file to tell us
what DSN to use. If we do _everything_ in the db, it forces us to use
one DSN for _all_ blogs. (Or have multiple copies of blog.cfc each with
it's own <cfset dsn = whatever> line).
Going back to ini file - it _would_ be ok if the ini file was kept out
of the web root. Heck, we could even rename blog.ini to blogini.cfm. Did
you know the INI file functions still work on a file even if it's not
named *.ini? And you can even add
<cfabort>
to the top of the page and it won't screw stuff up. So, this would only
be a security risk if someone got access to the file itself, not via the
web. One nice thing about keeping the ini approach is that it allows me
to remove the users table from the db, making the db even more simple.
We could also store hashes of user passwords in the ini file, but then
I'd need to add a user admin to the client so you wouldn't have to write
a custom CFML file everytime you edit a user.
Forgive the rambling nature of this note. My own thoughts are unsure of
how to support this.
========================================================================
===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
Email : jed...@mi...
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
_______________________________________________
Blogcfc-develop mailing list
Blo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop
|
|
From: Ray, S. <SR...@Pe...> - 2003-07-31 18:09:15
|
Oh, I've used it for data storage. You could definitely do that, either using WDDX or not. The blog I wrote stores the entries in XML. Hmm. Maybe no database. But the files would get big. Don't know if that'd cause a problem or not. Can it be relational? That part I couldn't figure out. Steve -----Original Message----- From: W. Adamsen [mailto:wil...@ya...] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:37 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion --- "Ray, Steve" <SR...@Pe...> wrote: > I don't personally like the idea of managing users in a text file. > That could get tedious. Though it'd be more work, I'd rather have them in > the database, and have a module to manage them. What would be the limitations to using xml as both the ini and ultimately the data storage (not that this wuld be the only option)? I use wddx as structured data for initialization of applications but have often thought about (but never used) it for the actual data storage. In blogmx (B. Hediard's blog) the content is stored as wddx ... and Nathan Dintenfass recently shared a "training" app using it for authentication (noting a db would be used in production). I'm not sure how performance is affected. One might assume there is more overhead for opening a file than an already established db connection. Also, all that xml gets a big footprint .. but for a casual blog user and training, this might not be an issue. Security could be established by restricting communication to xml\cfc. Especially for a "training" app, this approach increases portability, and decreases complexity and cost. Just a thought. - Bill A. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: Raymond C. <jed...@mi...> - 2003-07-31 18:14:07
|
Sure it can be relational, it's just not as enforced. For example, the xml packet for an entry could have <categoryidfk>3</categoryidfk> ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Ray, Steve > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:55 AM > To: 'blo...@li...' > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > Oh, I've used it for data storage. You could definitely do > that, either using WDDX or not. The blog I wrote stores the > entries in XML. Hmm. Maybe no database. But the files would > get big. Don't know if that'd cause a problem or not. Can it > be relational? That part I couldn't figure out. > > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > From: W. Adamsen [mailto:wil...@ya...] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:37 PM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > --- "Ray, Steve" <SR...@Pe...> wrote: > > I don't personally like the idea of managing users in a text file. > > That could get tedious. Though it'd be more work, I'd > rather have them > > in the database, and have a module to manage them. > > What would be the limitations to using xml as both the ini > and ultimately the data storage (not that this wuld be the > only option)? I use wddx as structured data for > initialization of applications but have often thought about (but never > used) it for the actual data storage. In blogmx (B. > Hediard's blog) the content is stored as wddx ... and Nathan > Dintenfass recently shared a "training" app using it for > authentication (noting a db would be used in production). > > I'm not sure how performance is affected. One might assume > there is more overhead for opening a file than an already > established db connection. Also, all that xml gets a big > footprint .. but for a casual blog user and training, this > might not be an issue. Security could be established by restricting > communication to xml\cfc. > > Especially for a "training" app, this approach increases > portability, and decreases complexity and cost. > > Just a thought. > > - Bill A. > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design > software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites > including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are > available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or > Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet _072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: Stacy Y. <Sta...@sf...> - 2003-08-04 15:25:58
|
I think that's an excellent move. Btw...where can I download the latest= code? Last time I checked SF there were no files available. (or is it = only via CVS at the moment?) Stace -----Original Message----- From= : Raymond Camden [mailto:jed...@mi...] Sent: Monday, August = 04, 2003 11:09 AM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE= : [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Forta does have a strong poin= t. There are, essentially, two products here. One a client and one a ser= ver. In general, I care a lot more about the server since I assume peopl= e will use their own client, however, I do think a significant amount of= people use the client as well. We could simply remove the authenticate = method from the blog and simply make it so that you pass in a username. = So, for example, when I add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in = username=3Dmorpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog doesn't care w= ho morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is just a signature. That wo= uld make certain aspects a bit easier for sure. At the same time though,= I think people like being able to use the basic authenticate method alr= eady stored in the blog. I don't know - what do others think? =3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D = Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.c= om) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromed= ia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.co= m/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powe= rful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blogcf= c-d...@li... > [mailto:blogcfc-develop-admin@l= ists.sourceforge.net] On > Behalf Of Ben Forta > Sent: Sunday, August = 03, 2003 7:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject:= RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I've been giving t= his one lots of thought, and honestly, I > don't believe users and pass= words belong here at all. In the > current distribution, the first thin= g I do each time I grab a > new build is to comment out the line of cod= e in > Application.cfm which invokes the user authentication method >= (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the user table). > Why? B= ecause I already have users and passwords and access > control for othe= r parts of my site and I just reuse those. > -------------------= ------------------------------------ This SF.Net email sponsored by: Fre= e pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, a= nd Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or = Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct= ;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 ______________________________________________= _ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... h= ttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop AVIS IMP= ORTANT: ------------------------------- Les informations contenues dan= s le present document et ses pieces jointes sont strictement confidentiel= les et reservees a l'usage de la (des) personne(s) a qui il est adresse. = Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire, soyez avise que toute divulgation, di= stribution, copie, ou autre utilisation de ces informations est stricteme= nt prohibee. Si vous avez recu ce document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous= plait communiquer immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce documen= t sans en faire de copie sous quelque forme. WARNING: ---------------= ---------------- The information contained in this document and attachme= nts is confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above. If y= ou are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclo= sure, copying, distribution, or any other use of the information is stric= tly prohibited. If you have received this document by mistake, please not= ify the sender immediately and destroy this document and attachments with= out making any copy of any kind. |
|
From: Raymond C. <jed...@mi...> - 2003-08-04 15:29:56
|
SOrry for the delay in getting code ready. I'm re-organizing stuff so it's a better package. It's 90% there. Worst-case scenario - tomorrow morning. The re-org is so good though I might actually release to the public as well since it more cleanly separates the CFC from the blog from the install instructions. I plan on also sneaking in a few quick features into this 3.0 alpha: 1) Support for More.... 2) An Access database if you want to use Access. 3) No more Database crap. No defaults, no use of getDate(), etc. 4) A script to convert from current db to new db. ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Stacy Young > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:21 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > > I think that's an excellent move. Btw...where can I download > the latest code? Last time I checked SF there were no files > available. (or is it only via CVS at the moment?) > > Stace > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:jed...@mi...] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two > products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I > care a lot more about the server since I assume people will > use their own client, however, I do think a significant > amount of people use the client as well. We could simply > remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make > it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I > add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in > username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog > doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is > just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit > easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like > being able to use the basic authenticate method already > stored in the blog. > > I don't know - what do others think? > > ============================================================== > ========== > === > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > (www.mindseye.com) > Member of Team Macromedia > (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) > > Email : jed...@mi... > Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog > Yahoo IM : morpheus > > "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blo...@li... > > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > > Behalf Of Ben Forta > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > > To: blo...@li... > > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I > > don't believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the > > current distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a > > new build is to comment out the line of code in > > Application.cfm which invokes the user authentication method > > (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the user table). > > Why? Because I already have users and passwords and access > > control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet > _072303_01 > /01 > _______________________________________________ > Blogcfc-develop mailing list > Blo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop > > > AVIS IMPORTANT: > ------------------------------- > Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses > pieces jointes sont strictement confidentielles et reservees > a l'usage de la (des) personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si > vous n'etes pas le destinataire, soyez avise que toute > divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre utilisation de ces > informations est strictement prohibee. Si vous avez recu ce > document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer > immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce document sans > en faire de copie sous quelque forme. > > WARNING: > ------------------------------- > The information contained in this document and attachments is > confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above. > If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified > that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use > of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this document by mistake, please notify the sender > immediately and destroy this document and attachments without > making any copy of any kind. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet > _072303_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Blogcfc-develop mailing list > Blo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop > |
|
From: Ray, S. <SR...@Pe...> - 2003-08-04 15:27:40
|
I would be for having some sort of plug-in cfc for authentication, that people could either use or skip. I understand Ben's objections; it would be nice to keep the blog kind of independent and loosely-coupled. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:jed...@mi...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I care a lot more about the server since I assume people will use their own client, however, I do think a significant amount of people use the client as well. We could simply remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like being able to use the basic authenticate method already stored in the blog. I don't know - what do others think? ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Ben Forta > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I > don't believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the > current distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a > new build is to comment out the line of code in > Application.cfm which invokes the user authentication method > (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the user table). > Why? Because I already have users and passwords and access > control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: Raymond C. <jed...@mi...> - 2003-08-04 15:32:49
|
Again - we can support that if we just remove all security from the blog. This is seeming like a possible good solution. More work for you out of the box though. ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Ray, Steve > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:30 AM > To: 'blo...@li...' > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I would be for having some sort of plug-in cfc for > authentication, that people could either use or skip. I > understand Ben's objections; it would be nice to keep the > blog kind of independent and loosely-coupled. > > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:jed...@mi...] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two > products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I > care a lot more about the server since I assume people will > use their own client, however, I do think a significant > amount of people use the client as well. We could simply > remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make > it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I > add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in > username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog > doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is > just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit > easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like > being able to use the basic authenticate method already > stored in the blog. > > I don't know - what do others think? > > ============================================================== > ========== > === > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > (www.mindseye.com) > Member of Team Macromedia > (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) > > Email : jed...@mi... > Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog > Yahoo IM : morpheus > > "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blo...@li... > > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > > Behalf Of Ben Forta > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > > To: blo...@li... > > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I > > don't believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the > > current distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a > > new build is to comment out the line of code in > > Application.cfm which invokes the user authentication method > > (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the user table). > > Why? Because I already have users and passwords and access > > control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet > _072303_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Blogcfc-develop mailing list > Blo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet > _072303_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Blogcfc-develop mailing list > Blo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop > |
|
From: William N. S. <Wil...@hk...> - 2003-08-04 20:49:01
|
I agree...This is what I was trying to say earlier...but Ben says it MUCH MUCH more eloquently. -william. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Forta [mailto:bf...@ma...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:28 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion So, here's what I suggest ... Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog, no users, no roles, no rights, it's an API. You then have another version of the code inherit of blog.cfc, that version implements all the user stuff. It also relies on an external file called user.cfc for calls like authenticate() and so on. You provide a default user.cfc and anyone can create their own to change how authentication and validation works. This way ... * Blog can be used as is simply on sites like mine. * Blog supports multi users as needed. * Blog also supports any existing security if already in place. I think. :-) -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...] On Behalf Of Raymond Camden Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I care a lot more about the server since I assume people will use their own client, however, I do think a significant amount of people use the client as well. We could simply remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like being able to use the basic authenticate method already stored in the blog. I don't know - what do others think? ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Ben Forta > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I > don't believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the > current distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a > new build is to comment out the line of code in > Application.cfm which invokes the user authentication method > (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the user table). > Why? Because I already have users and passwords and access > control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: McNaughton, J. <Jef...@pu...> - 2003-08-04 21:08:17
|
Re: Ben's "Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog,,," One blog per cfc, or N Blogs per cfc? -----Original Message----- From: William N. Steiner [mailto:Wil...@hk...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:49 PM To: 'blo...@li...' Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion I agree...This is what I was trying to say earlier...but Ben says it MUCH MUCH more eloquently. -william. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Forta [mailto:bf...@ma...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:28 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion So, here's what I suggest ... Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog, no users, no roles, no rights, it's an API. You then have another version of the code inherit of blog.cfc, that version implements all the user stuff. It also relies on an external file called user.cfc for calls like authenticate() and so on. You provide a default user.cfc and anyone can create their own to change how authentication and validation works. This way ... * Blog can be used as is simply on sites like mine. * Blog supports multi users as needed. * Blog also supports any existing security if already in place. I think. :-) -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...] On Behalf Of Raymond Camden Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I care a lot more about the server since I assume people will use their own client, however, I do think a significant amount of people use the client as well. We could simply remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like being able to use the basic authenticate method already stored in the blog. I don't know - what do others think? ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Ben Forta > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I don't > believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the current > distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a new build is to > comment out the line of code in Application.cfm which invokes the user > authentication method (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the > user table). Why? Because I already have users and passwords and > access control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: Ben F. <bf...@ma...> - 2003-08-04 21:12:49
|
I am fine with it being multiple so long as: a) There is a way to use a default (for those that don't care about multiple) b) It does not require any complex admin to set up that default. c) There is a way to pass the blog is (maybe to an init() method) and then things just work. -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...] On Behalf Of McNaughton, Jeff Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:08 PM To: 'blo...@li...' Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Re: Ben's "Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog,,," One blog per cfc, or N Blogs per cfc? -----Original Message----- From: William N. Steiner [mailto:Wil...@hk...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:49 PM To: 'blo...@li...' Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion I agree...This is what I was trying to say earlier...but Ben says it MUCH MUCH more eloquently. -william. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Forta [mailto:bf...@ma...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:28 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion So, here's what I suggest ... Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog, no users, no roles, no rights, it's an API. You then have another version of the code inherit of blog.cfc, that version implements all the user stuff. It also relies on an external file called user.cfc for calls like authenticate() and so on. You provide a default user.cfc and anyone can create their own to change how authentication and validation works. This way ... * Blog can be used as is simply on sites like mine. * Blog supports multi users as needed. * Blog also supports any existing security if already in place. I think. :-) -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...] On Behalf Of Raymond Camden Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I care a lot more about the server since I assume people will use their own client, however, I do think a significant amount of people use the client as well. We could simply remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like being able to use the basic authenticate method already stored in the blog. I don't know - what do others think? ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Ben Forta > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I don't > believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the current > distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a new build is to > comment out the line of code in Application.cfm which invokes the user > authentication method (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the > user table). Why? Because I already have users and passwords and > access control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: Nathan D. <na...@ch...> - 2003-08-04 23:07:31
|
MessageOne approach I have been taking on my nascent blogging API (impart.sourceforge.net) is to have a set of services (persistence, caching, etc.) that all require a blog ID for all method calls then have what I call a "dataGateway" which is instantiated with a blog ID and cached -- that way the person using the API does not need to be aware of the internal machinery that deals with multiple blogs -- they have a simple API and the system deals with the complexity. Though, that project is fairly different than this one (different architectural goals -- like, pluggable persistence, etc.) it might also work here. I still haven't figured out how to do the author thing, but I've been toying with the idea that when you save/edit an entry in the blog you need to pass it an instance of an "author" object. Then the person implementing a blog can create author instances any way they like. I plan to provide an "out-of-the-box" mechanism for user management via what might be called a securityGateway (or, perhaps even create an API that can be "implemented" using your own user/security rules), but there's no reason someone has to use it, as long as they store author instances along with their entries (so that we can display who wrote a given entry, etc.). Make sense? -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...]On Behalf Of Ben Forta Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:12 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion I am fine with it being multiple so long as: a) There is a way to use a default (for those that don't care about multiple) b) It does not require any complex admin to set up that default. c) There is a way to pass the blog is (maybe to an init() method) and then things just work. -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...] On Behalf Of McNaughton, Jeff Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:08 PM To: 'blo...@li...' Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Re: Ben's "Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog,,," One blog per cfc, or N Blogs per cfc? -----Original Message----- From: William N. Steiner [mailto:Wil...@hk...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:49 PM To: 'blo...@li...' Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion I agree...This is what I was trying to say earlier...but Ben says it MUCH MUCH more eloquently. -william. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Forta [mailto:bf...@ma...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:28 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion So, here's what I suggest ... Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog, no users, no roles, no rights, it's an API. You then have another version of the code inherit of blog.cfc, that version implements all the user stuff. It also relies on an external file called user.cfc for calls like authenticate() and so on. You provide a default user.cfc and anyone can create their own to change how authentication and validation works. This way ... * Blog can be used as is simply on sites like mine. * Blog supports multi users as needed. * Blog also supports any existing security if already in place. I think. :-) -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...] On Behalf Of Raymond Camden Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I care a lot more about the server since I assume people will use their own client, however, I do think a significant amount of people use the client as well. We could simply remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like being able to use the basic authenticate method already stored in the blog. I don't know - what do others think? ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Ben Forta > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I don't > believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the current > distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a new build is to > comment out the line of code in Application.cfm which invokes the user > authentication method (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the > user table). Why? Because I already have users and passwords and > access control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: McNaughton, J. <Jef...@pu...> - 2003-08-04 21:56:59
|
In looking through the feature requests I found "N Blogs per 1 DSN", I'm not sure, but maybe it's getting at the same thing? Since I tend a corporate intranet, multiple user's and multiple blogs would be nice. I think Ben's approach is solid. I could handle the user/blog relationship in the application or the custom user.cfc (thinking while typing here)... This might be a good feature to differentiate against other blogging software. I am not a big expert but all the blogging software I found was usually based on the premise that it was for a single user / single blog. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Forta [mailto:bf...@ma...] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:12 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion I am fine with it being multiple so long as: a) There is a way to use a default (for those that don't care about multiple) b) It does not require any complex admin to set up that default. c) There is a way to pass the blog is (maybe to an init() method) and then things just work. -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...] On Behalf Of McNaughton, Jeff Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:08 PM To: 'blo...@li...' Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Re: Ben's "Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog,,," One blog per cfc, or N Blogs per cfc? -----Original Message----- From: William N. Steiner [mailto:Wil...@hk... <mailto:Wil...@hk...> ] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:49 PM To: 'blo...@li...' Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion I agree...This is what I was trying to say earlier...but Ben says it MUCH MUCH more eloquently. -william. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Forta [mailto:bf...@ma... <mailto:bf...@ma...> ] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:28 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion So, here's what I suggest ... Core blog.cfc is tied to a blog, no users, no roles, no rights, it's an API. You then have another version of the code inherit of blog.cfc, that version implements all the user stuff. It also relies on an external file called user.cfc for calls like authenticate() and so on. You provide a default user.cfc and anyone can create their own to change how authentication and validation works. This way ... * Blog can be used as is simply on sites like mine. * Blog supports multi users as needed. * Blog also supports any existing security if already in place. I think. :-) -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li... <mailto:blo...@li...> ] On Behalf Of Raymond Camden Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:09 AM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion Forta does have a strong point. There are, essentially, two products here. One a client and one a server. In general, I care a lot more about the server since I assume people will use their own client, however, I do think a significant amount of people use the client as well. We could simply remove the authenticate method from the blog and simply make it so that you pass in a username. So, for example, when I add an entry, it's my responsibility to pass in username=morpheus and the blog just trusts it. The blog doesn't care who morpheus it - for it - the name morpheus is just a signature. That would make certain aspects a bit easier for sure. At the same time though, I think people like being able to use the basic authenticate method already stored in the blog. I don't know - what do others think? ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia <http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia> ) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li... <mailto:blo...@li...> ] On > Behalf Of Ben Forta > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > I've been giving this one lots of thought, and honestly, I don't > believe users and passwords belong here at all. In the current > distribution, the first thing I do each time I grab a new build is to > comment out the line of code in Application.cfm which invokes the user > authentication method (and I also do not execute the SQL to create the > user table). Why? Because I already have users and passwords and > access control for other parts of my site and I just reuse those. > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01 <http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01> /01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop> ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 <http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop> ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 <http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop> |
|
From: Stacy Y. <Sta...@sf...> - 2003-08-04 22:21:20
|
What about having a BlogManager which is responsible for duties relating = to, well, multi-blog management...and just have the Blog class/cfc handle= itself as a single entity. Stace -----Original Message----- From:= McNaughton, Jeff [mailto:Jef...@pu...] Sent: Monday= , August 04, 2003 5:57 PM To: 'blo...@li...' S= ubject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion In looking through = the feature requests=A0I found "N Blogs per 1 DSN",=A0 I'm not sure, but = maybe it's getting at the same thing? =A0 Since I tend a corporate intr= anet, multiple user's and multiple blogs would be nice.=A0 I think Ben's = approach is solid.=A0 I could handle the user/blog relationship in the ap= plication or=A0the custom user.cfc (thinking while typing here)... =A0 = This might be a good feature to differentiate against other blogging soft= ware.=A0 I am not a big expert but all the blogging software I found was = usually based on the premise that it was for a single user / single blog.= =A0 =A0 AVIS IMPORTANT: ------------------------------- Les i= nformations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces jointes sont= strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la (des) personne(= s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire, soyez avise = que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre utilisation de ces i= nformations est strictement prohibee. Si vous avez recu ce document par e= rreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer immediatement avec l'expedite= ur et detruire ce document sans en faire de copie sous quelque forme. = WARNING: ------------------------------- The information contained in t= his document and attachments is confidential and intended only for the pe= rson(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby= notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use of= the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this docume= nt by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this docu= ment and attachments without making any copy of any kind. |
|
From: W. A. <wil...@ya...> - 2003-08-04 23:12:20
|
With Blog Manager being similar to an aggregator such as Geoff Bower's Fullasagoog? That could be very useful to organizations ... especially if there were then N aggregators. - Bill --- Stacy Young <Sta...@sf...> wrote: > What about having a BlogManager which is responsible for duties relating to, > well, multi-blog management...and just have the Blog class/cfc handle itself > as a single entity. > > Stace > > -----Original Message----- > From: McNaughton, Jeff [mailto:Jef...@pu...] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:57 PM > To: 'blo...@li...' > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > In looking through the feature requests I found "N Blogs per 1 DSN", I'm not > sure, but maybe it's getting at the same thing? > > Since I tend a corporate intranet, multiple user's and multiple blogs would > be nice. I think Ben's approach is solid. I could handle the user/blog > relationship in the application or the custom user.cfc (thinking while typing > here)... > > This might be a good feature to differentiate against other blogging > software. I am not a big expert but all the blogging software I found was > usually based on the premise that it was for a single user / single blog. > > > > > AVIS IMPORTANT: > ------------------------------- > Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces jointes > sont strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la (des) > personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire, soyez > avise que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre utilisation de ces > informations est strictement prohibee. Si vous avez recu ce document par > erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer immediatement avec l'expediteur > et detruire ce document sans en faire de copie sous quelque forme. > > WARNING: > ------------------------------- > The information contained in this document and attachments is confidential > and intended only for the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, > or any other use of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this document by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and > destroy this document and attachments without making any copy of any kind. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Blogcfc-develop mailing list > Blo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com |
|
From: Tim L. <t....@to...> - 2003-08-05 15:27:30
|
I think that what you're talking about Bill would be a separate app altogether. A resonable request would be to have a method in the multi-blog API to retrieve the last N posts across all blogs, or any given list of blogs. Re Multiple Blogs: I think having a multi-blog CFC separate to the single blog CFC would be a better solution. You will end up with a very bloated single blog CFC if you include all the multi-blog functionality - K.I.S.S.! Oh, and BTW, I support Ben with regards to keeping the API and the management application separate. For example MovableType's architecture has strongly lended to its success, and I reckon we should agree on the architecture and API before worring about the management app. - Tim W. Adamsen spoke the following wise words on 5/08/2003 9:12 AM EST: >With Blog Manager being similar to an aggregator such as Geoff Bower's >Fullasagoog? That could be very useful to organizations ... especially if >there were then N aggregators. > > - Bill > >--- Stacy Young <Sta...@sf...> wrote: > > >>What about having a BlogManager which is responsible for duties relating to, >>well, multi-blog management...and just have the Blog class/cfc handle itself >>as a single entity. >> >>Stace >> >> |
|
From: W. A. <wil...@ya...> - 2003-07-31 17:44:42
|
--- "Ray, Steve" <SR...@Pe...> wrote: > I don't personally like the idea of managing users in a text file. > That could get tedious. Though it'd be more work, I'd rather have them in > the database, and have a module to manage them. What would be the limitations to using xml as both the ini and ultimately the data storage (not that this wuld be the only option)? I use wddx as structured data for initialization of applications but have often thought about (but never used) it for the actual data storage. In blogmx (B. Hediard's blog) the content is stored as wddx ... and Nathan Dintenfass recently shared a "training" app using it for authentication (noting a db would be used in production). I'm not sure how performance is affected. One might assume there is more overhead for opening a file than an already established db connection. Also, all that xml gets a big footprint .. but for a casual blog user and training, this might not be an issue. Security could be established by restricting communication to xml\cfc. Especially for a "training" app, this approach increases portability, and decreases complexity and cost. Just a thought. - Bill A. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com |
|
From: Raymond C. <jed...@mi...> - 2003-07-31 17:56:20
|
One of my goals for the next rev of the blog, after this big change, was XML as a data storage _option_. As for initialization, I have no issues with switching to an xml file, except it may be a bit harder to edit. One thing though - I do NOT like having info (I mean info that defines the blog) in the ini _and_ in the db. To me, it seems like it should be one or the other completely. ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : jed...@mi... Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: blo...@li... > [mailto:blo...@li...] On > Behalf Of W. Adamsen > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:37 AM > To: blo...@li... > Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion > > > --- "Ray, Steve" <SR...@Pe...> wrote: > > I don't personally like the idea of managing users in a text file. > > That could get tedious. Though it'd be more work, I'd > rather have them > > in the database, and have a module to manage them. > > What would be the limitations to using xml as both the ini > and ultimately the data storage (not that this wuld be the > only option)? I use wddx as structured data for > initialization of applications but have often thought about (but never > used) it for the actual data storage. In blogmx (B. > Hediard's blog) the content is stored as wddx ... and Nathan > Dintenfass recently shared a "training" app using it for > authentication (noting a db would be used in production). > > I'm not sure how performance is affected. One might assume > there is more overhead for opening a file than an already > established db connection. Also, all that xml gets a big > footprint .. but for a casual blog user and training, this > might not be an issue. Security could be established by restricting > communication to xml\cfc. > > Especially for a "training" app, this approach increases > portability, and decreases complexity and cost. > > Just a thought. > > - Bill A. > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design > software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites > including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are > available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or > Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet _072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: Roger B. <ro...@ag...> - 2003-07-31 18:24:31
|
> In blogmx (B. Hediard's blog) the > content is stored as wddx ... and Nathan Dintenfass recently shared a > "training" app using it for authentication (noting a db would be used in > production). JournURL stores all entry bodies and non-essential metadata in WDDX packets, while using a database to provide an index. One or the other wouldn't have done the job... without the DB, retrieving and sorting ranges of entries would be a slow pain, and without XML storage, I would need to modify tables every time some new little bit of metadata needed to be attached to an entry. > I'm not sure how performance is affected. One might assume there is more > overhead for opening a file than an already established db connection. I can't give you detailed metrics, but I can say that, IMX, CFFILE has been the least of my performance problems. -- Roger Benningfield http://journurl.com/ blog: http://admin.support.journurl.com/ -----Original Message----- From: blo...@li... [mailto:blo...@li...]On Behalf Of W. Adamsen Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:37 PM To: blo...@li... Subject: RE: [Blogcfc-develop] First big discussion --- "Ray, Steve" <SR...@Pe...> wrote: > I don't personally like the idea of managing users in a text file. > That could get tedious. Though it'd be more work, I'd rather have them in > the database, and have a module to manage them. What would be the limitations to using xml as both the ini and ultimately the data storage (not that this wuld be the only option)? I use wddx as structured data for initialization of applications but have often thought about (but never used) it for the actual data storage. In blogmx (B. Hediard's blog) the content is stored as wddx ... and Nathan Dintenfass recently shared a "training" app using it for authentication (noting a db would be used in production). I'm not sure how performance is affected. One might assume there is more overhead for opening a file than an already established db connection. Also, all that xml gets a big footprint .. but for a casual blog user and training, this might not be an issue. Security could be established by restricting communication to xml\cfc. Especially for a "training" app, this approach increases portability, and decreases complexity and cost. Just a thought. - Bill A. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Blogcfc-develop mailing list Blo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blogcfc-develop |
|
From: W. A. <wil...@ya...> - 2003-07-31 18:58:56
|
--- "W. Adamsen" <wil...@ya...> wrote: > I'm not sure how performance is affected. One might assume there is more > overhead for opening a file than an already established db connection. Just realized it should cache some percentage of the wddx - with a recache mechanism on create\update for performance. I believe blogmx does that (I can't verify because it's seems "down" at the moment). This could be an admin selectable attribute. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X