Menu
▾
▴
bodington-developers — Mailing list for Bodington developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(41) |
May
(353) |
Jun
(133) |
Jul
(534) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(219) |
Oct
(86) |
Nov
(144) |
Dec
(61) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
(200) |
Feb
(130) |
Mar
(345) |
Apr
(153) |
May
(247) |
Jun
(338) |
Jul
(222) |
Aug
(70) |
Sep
(39) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(76) |
Dec
(30) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(81) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(34) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(7) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-06 09:08:33
|
Thanks for this, Peter. s On 6 Jul 2006, at 10:01, Peter Crowther wrote: >> 9.b) What is the URL for your license agreement? > > http://bodington.cvs.sourceforge.net/bodington/bodington/LICENSE? > view=ma > rkup > > [Note that I've just added that file - it is a copy of the text at the > top of each source file, which did not seem to be available at a > central > location.] > > - Peter |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@ou...> - 2006-07-06 09:05:28
|
Peter Crowther wrote: > We are in the process of moving to Mozilla Public License. Who's 'we'? Bodington? I thought it was agreed it was going to be Apache? >>9.a) If so, which Open Source License(s) is your project currently > > under? > > Not applicable. > > >>9.b) What is the URL for your license agreement? > > > http://bodington.cvs.sourceforge.net/bodington/bodington/LICENSE?view=ma > rkup > > [Note that I've just added that file - it is a copy of the text at the > top of each source file, which did not seem to be available at a central > location.] > > - Peter > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Peter C. <Pet...@me...> - 2006-07-06 09:01:35
|
> From: Sean Mehan > 9. Is your project using an approved Open Source License? The license is unapproved. The present license is close to a MIT license, but has extra clauses regarding trademarks. We are in the process of moving to Mozilla Public License. > 9.a) If so, which Open Source License(s) is your project currently under? Not applicable. > 9.b) What is the URL for your license agreement? http://bodington.cvs.sourceforge.net/bodington/bodington/LICENSE?view=3Dm= a rkup [Note that I've just added that file - it is a copy of the text at the top of each source file, which did not seem to be available at a central location.] - Peter |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@ou...> - 2006-07-06 08:52:07
|
Sean Mehan wrote: > Cool. I will do this. However, I have a problem with the following: > > 9. Is your project using an approved > <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php> Open Source License? I/we're having no joy with getting this through, the person in our legal services hasn't been replying to my emails. I'll try a different method today... Colin > > > On 5 Jul 2006, at 20:59, Alistair Young wrote: > >> Colin's looking after the wiki so I'd be willing to look after a >> bodington.org JIRA tracker. It's free for open source projects. This is >> the info they need: >> >> http://www.atlassian.com/software/views/opensource-license-request.jsp >> >> if anyone wants to start it off and send me the info - we could apply for >> an open source freebie and host it here. >> >> Our own JIRA is LDAP enabled so might not be suitable for bodington.org, >> as Colin just found out. >> >> -- >> Alistair Young >> Senior Software Engineer >> UHI@Sabhal Mòr Ostaig >> Isle of Skye >> Scotland -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-06 08:47:10
|
yeah, the problem here is making it easy (or even achievable) to make something work correctly for a site without having to resort to hackery. Alistair's recs were: Provide a separate shibboleth route into Bodington so that the main / site can be left as is for local users. Recommend this be called / shibboleth Document known behaviour such as shibbed sysadmin access. Install a Guanxi SP Engine somewhere at a partner site to allow shibbed Bods to test their functionality without having to install an Engine. Perhaps consider this as the default distribution of Bodington shibboleth functionality. i.e. shipping Bod with the SP module and a Guanxi Guard but make a Guanxi Engine available on bodington.org or other domain for bods to use. Documentation to be provided on how to use the SP module. They seem perfectly reasonable to me for production release code. s On 6 Jul 2006, at 09:35, Alistair Young wrote: > Thanks Atif, much ado about nothing then ;) > > I've updated http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? > title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality > > any chance of documentation on the wiki (rhetorical question) and > some logging? The documentation could be an example walkthrough of > setting up the sp module for an IdP domain. > > Alistair > > On 5 Jul 2006, at 18:22, Atif Suleman wrote: > >> Alistair Young wrote: >> >>>> why is it so much work to change that behaviour, so that normal >>>> users >>>> login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? >>>> >>>> >>> spot on - that's the goal, shibb users go in via /xyz - I can't say >>> how much work that is but until it's there bod can't be >>> advertised as >>> an sp. Taking over the /site for shibb users and shunting normal >>> users to /opensite is not going to go down well with the bod >>> community. >>> >>> >>> >> It can be done without much problem, all that is needed is the >> following >> in bodington web.xml: >> >> <filter-mapping> >> <filter-name>Guanxi Resource Guard</filter-name> >> <url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern> >> </filter-mapping> >> >> <servlet-mapping> >> <servlet-name>building</servlet-name> >> <url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern> >> </servlet-mapping> >> >> The /xyz is /spsite/* >> >> Normal users can go through /site/* >> >> Ta >> Atif. >> >> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >> security? >> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >> job easier >> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >> Geronimo >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-06 08:37:32
|
Cool. I will do this. However, I have a problem with the following: 9. Is your project using an approved Open Source License? 9.a) If so, which Open Source License(s) is your project currently =20 under? 9.b) What is the URL for your license agreement? any takers?-0 s On 5 Jul 2006, at 20:59, Alistair Young wrote: > Colin's looking after the wiki so I'd be willing to look after a > bodington.org JIRA tracker. It's free for open source projects. =20 > This is > the info they need: > > http://www.atlassian.com/software/views/opensource-license-request.jsp > > if anyone wants to start it off and send me the info - we could =20 > apply for > an open source freebie and host it here. > > Our own JIRA is LDAP enabled so might not be suitable for =20 > bodington.org, > as Colin just found out. > > --=20 > Alistair Young > Senior Software Engineer > UHI@Sabhal M=F2r Ostaig > Isle of Skye > Scotland > > > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, =20 > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your =20 > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache =20 > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20 > cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-07-06 08:35:41
|
Thanks Atif, much ado about nothing then ;) I've updated http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality any chance of documentation on the wiki (rhetorical question) and some logging? The documentation could be an example walkthrough of setting up the sp module for an IdP domain. Alistair On 5 Jul 2006, at 18:22, Atif Suleman wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: > >>> why is it so much work to change that behaviour, so that normal >>> users >>> login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? >>> >>> >> spot on - that's the goal, shibb users go in via /xyz - I can't say >> how much work that is but until it's there bod can't be advertised as >> an sp. Taking over the /site for shibb users and shunting normal >> users to /opensite is not going to go down well with the bod >> community. >> >> >> > It can be done without much problem, all that is needed is the > following > in bodington web.xml: > > <filter-mapping> > <filter-name>Guanxi Resource Guard</filter-name> > <url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern> > </filter-mapping> > > <servlet-mapping> > <servlet-name>building</servlet-name> > <url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern> > </servlet-mapping> > > The /xyz is /spsite/* > > Normal users can go through /site/* > > Ta > Atif. > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Ian B. <ia...@ca...> - 2006-07-06 08:32:52
|
Yes, I had a chat with Jonathan for about 45 minutes. The App is impressive, what I saw used a Plone back end to store image blobs in pyramid format (might be JPEG2000) and XML metadata/markup. The server side is relatively simple, providing content hosting for the data in a context aware environment. I think it needs to have some structure in the content hosting and it would like to have a search mechanism, either full search engine like or RDF like. My reason for talking to him was a) to get it in as a full Sakai Tool, b) to check that the Sakai Content Hosting Service was able to support his requirements, which it looks like it will. Ian John Norman wrote: > We have been following this for a while. Ian Boston spoke to Jonathan > about Sakai integration issues (which appear to be search related I > think) at the Vancouver Sakai conference. I hope he can give you some > more detail... > > John > > On 5 Jul 2006, at 14:40, Sean Mehan wrote: > >> I have just had a phone call about this: >> >> http://echo.gmu.edu/toolcenter-wiki/index.php?title=Project_Pad >> >> You can find more by following the Spoke Word at NW link. >> >> Anyone seen/heard of it? >> >> s >> >> >> >> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? >> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job >> easier >> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >> Geronimo >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-06 08:25:34
|
cool. Is anyone actually using it? s On 6 Jul 2006, at 09:17, John Norman wrote: > We have been following this for a while. Ian Boston spoke to Jonathan > about Sakai integration issues (which appear to be search related I > think) at the Vancouver Sakai conference. I hope he can give you some > more detail... > > John > > On 5 Jul 2006, at 14:40, Sean Mehan wrote: > >> I have just had a phone call about this: >> >> http://echo.gmu.edu/toolcenter-wiki/index.php?title=Project_Pad >> >> You can find more by following the Spoke Word at NW link. >> >> Anyone seen/heard of it? >> >> s >> >> >> >> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >> security? >> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >> job easier >> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >> Geronimo >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: John N. <jo...@ca...> - 2006-07-06 08:19:53
|
We have been following this for a while. Ian Boston spoke to Jonathan about Sakai integration issues (which appear to be search related I think) at the Vancouver Sakai conference. I hope he can give you some more detail... John On 5 Jul 2006, at 14:40, Sean Mehan wrote: > I have just had a phone call about this: > > http://echo.gmu.edu/toolcenter-wiki/index.php?title=Project_Pad > > You can find more by following the Spoke Word at NW link. > > Anyone seen/heard of it? > > s > > > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-07-05 19:59:25
|
Colin's looking after the wiki so I'd be willing to look after a bodington.org JIRA tracker. It's free for open source projects. This is the info they need: http://www.atlassian.com/software/views/opensource-license-request.jsp if anyone wants to start it off and send me the info - we could apply for an open source freebie and host it here. Our own JIRA is LDAP enabled so might not be suitable for bodington.org, as Colin just found out. --=20 Alistair Young Senior Software Engineer UHI@Sabhal M=F2r Ostaig Isle of Skye Scotland |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-05 18:52:09
|
well, we are pretty much the bod community, minus any lurkers who are using it without our knowledge. Who knows. Seems there are Danes using GX in anger without telling us, so it is possible. However, it is not right to do somethign retrograde in terms of ease of use, functionality, etc. It needs to be right on principle or we abandon the concept of community source in bod..... s <quote who=3D"Alistair Young"> >> why is it so much work to change that behaviour, so that normal users >> login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? > spot on - that's the goal, shibb users go in via /xyz - I can't say > how much work that is but until it's there bod can't be advertised as > an sp. Taking over the /site for shibb users and shunting normal > users to /opensite is not going to go down well with the bod community. > > Alistair > > > On 5 Jul 2006, at 14:24, Colin Tatham wrote: > >> Alistair Young wrote: >>>> different login route for Shibb isn't as good as a Shunnel(!) >>> >>> they're the same! a shunnel (cringe) is just another route into an >>> app via shibb. In this case it's a different url, /site/ >>> bs_template_shibb_login.html or something. >> >> I thought a shunnel (AY cringes) was a single page where users have >> to choose the login method, i.e. >> at the *same* URL as any other login point... >> >>> the issue is that the SP is too "invasive" for normal use. It can't >>> be used in a production bod as when it's turned on, all users must >>> login via it or via /opensite and when it's turned off they have to >>> revert to using the normal login in /site. >> >> Yes, I understand that, but why is it so much work to change that >> behaviour, so that normal users >> login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? Then, whether it's >> turned on or off makes no diff to >> normal users... >> >>> The code can stay in head and won't delay 2.8. >> >> OK, I though someone had suggested that it had to be removed... >> >>> What will delay 2.8 is >>> waiting for a shibb url to be implemented so that bod can be >>> advertised as an sp in 2.8 >>> >>> Alistair >>> >>> >>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 13:58, Colin Tatham wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Although I agree with most of what you say (I think) it doesn't >>>> seem to address what I was >>>> suggesting/asking? (Maybe it wasn't supposed to :-) ) >>>> >>>> 1) Can the SP bit be turned off by default, or re-configured so >>>> that the *Shibb* route is via a >>>> different URL? >>>> 2) Is the SP code already in HEAD? >>>> >>>> Although I agree having a different login route for Shibb isn't as >>>> good as a Shunnel(!) releasing >>>> 2.8 with different URL Shibb is better than not including it at >>>> all, especially if we have to take >>>> the code out of HEAD? >>>> >>>> Colin >>>> >>>> Alistair Young wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let me clarify first, that the issue is with bod itself, not with >>>>> what Atif has produced as a shibb module. I suspect the hand of >>>>> politics involved and as we all know, developers are it's servants. >>>>> >>>>> It would seem that local demands have impinged upon the gx >>>>> philosophy >>>>> of minimal disruption. e.g. the bod IdP runs without normal users' >>>>> knowledge and the SP should do the same. We, the gx project as a >>>>> whole, could have caught this earlier if we'd known about it but we >>>>> didn't so we couldn't. As the gx project is not about custom coding >>>>> to local demands then I would say it's fair to ask Atif or someone >>>>> Leeds can nominate to remove the implications of those local >>>>> demands >>>>> and bring bod in line with the minimal philosophy. >>>>> >>>>> This means providing a separate shibb route into bod. We've seen it >>>>> before with webauth etc so it's possible and is arguably the way it >>>>> should have been. >>>>> >>>>> As it stands, it's unacceptable to change the way an institution's >>>>> users work just so that a feature of the vle can be tested. When >>>>> opening your vle to shibbed users means inconveniencing your own >>>>> users, then we have failed. It's bad practice and bad publicity >>>>> that >>>>> will only harm bod in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> The Guanxi and SOCKET projects enjoy a symbiotic relationship so >>>>> let's not disturb that. Instead, let's find a way out of this >>>>> that is >>>>> benficial to all concerned. Whether that means subcontracting to >>>>> someone who knows enough about bod to implement this is a matter >>>>> for >>>>> discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, we know of someone who is currently available and is fresh >>>>> from testing bod and has some shibb knowledge to boot ;) >>>>> >>>>> Alistair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:57, Colin Tatham wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> well, what it does mean is that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) GX isn't done, still; >>>>>>> 2) 2.8 will ship with no SP support unless we delay the 2.8 >>>>>>> release >>>>>>> for an indeterminate amount of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are the problems with the SP that bad that we remove it for 2.8? >>>>>> I think the main one is the fact that you can't use the same login >>>>>> route for Shibb and normal Bod >>>>>> auth (and the fact that sysadmin has to go via /opensite/). If >>>>>> it's >>>>>> possible to release it with the >>>>>> SP stuff turned off, it will work as normal, and if people want to >>>>>> test the SP, they follow some >>>>>> short instructions to enable it (and find out that they have to >>>>>> now >>>>>> login via /opensite/ as sysadmin)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Colin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If it is the case that we still haven't finished GX (with the >>>>>>> SP in >>>>>>> bod being a component of that), then, I suppose that we are >>>>>>> beholden >>>>>>> to Leeds to find the time for >>>>>>> their current project, which is still giving them money, in >>>>>>> order to >>>>>>> complete a project for which they received all of their money >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> time ago. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for 2, all things being equal, its a ++2 from me to ship >>>>>>> Bod 2.8 >>>>>>> with no SP support. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> s >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:13, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nae probs wee man! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:16, Atif Suleman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alistair for the feedback: >>>>>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>>> title=3DTestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any work on bodington-sp will have to wait until Socket >>>>>>>>> project is >>>>>>>>> finished at the end of the month. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ta >>>>>>>>> Atif. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On the SP side, Atif, can you fix the things Al has found >>>>>>>>>> there, >>>>>>>>>> including the documentation? We really need the SP to work >>>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>>> final >>>>>>>>>> output for GX. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> S >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 10:38, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've updated the testing page: >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>>>>> title=3DTestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good work Atif on the sp module but bod itself just isn't >>>>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>> an sp IMHO. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alistair >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> Colin Tatham >>>>>> VLE Team >>>>>> Oxford University Computing Services >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>>>>> http://bodington.org >> -- >> ____________________________________ >> Colin Tatham >> VLE Team >> Oxford University Computing Services >> >> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >> http://bodington.org >> >> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >> security? >> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >> job easier >> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >> Geronimo >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, securit= y? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job > easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geron= imo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > --=20 Sean Mehan Head of e-Frameworks Learning and Information Services UHI |
|
From: Atif S. <BM...@bm...> - 2006-07-05 18:10:22
|
Alistair Young wrote:
>>why is it so much work to change that behaviour, so that normal users
>>login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/?
>>
>>
>spot on - that's the goal, shibb users go in via /xyz - I can't say
>how much work that is but until it's there bod can't be advertised as
>an sp. Taking over the /site for shibb users and shunting normal
>users to /opensite is not going to go down well with the bod community.
>
>
>
It can be done without much problem, all that is needed is the following
in bodington web.xml:
<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>Guanxi Resource Guard</filter-name>
<url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern>
</filter-mapping>
<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>building</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>
The /xyz is /spsite/*
Normal users can go through /site/*
Ta
Atif.
|
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-07-05 17:02:07
|
> why is it so much work to change that behaviour, so that normal users > login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? spot on - that's the goal, shibb users go in via /xyz - I can't say how much work that is but until it's there bod can't be advertised as an sp. Taking over the /site for shibb users and shunting normal users to /opensite is not going to go down well with the bod community. Alistair On 5 Jul 2006, at 14:24, Colin Tatham wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: >>> different login route for Shibb isn't as good as a Shunnel(!) >> >> they're the same! a shunnel (cringe) is just another route into an >> app via shibb. In this case it's a different url, /site/ >> bs_template_shibb_login.html or something. > > I thought a shunnel (AY cringes) was a single page where users have > to choose the login method, i.e. > at the *same* URL as any other login point... > >> the issue is that the SP is too "invasive" for normal use. It can't >> be used in a production bod as when it's turned on, all users must >> login via it or via /opensite and when it's turned off they have to >> revert to using the normal login in /site. > > Yes, I understand that, but why is it so much work to change that > behaviour, so that normal users > login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? Then, whether it's > turned on or off makes no diff to > normal users... > >> The code can stay in head and won't delay 2.8. > > OK, I though someone had suggested that it had to be removed... > >> What will delay 2.8 is >> waiting for a shibb url to be implemented so that bod can be >> advertised as an sp in 2.8 >> >> Alistair >> >> >> On 5 Jul 2006, at 13:58, Colin Tatham wrote: >> >> >>> Although I agree with most of what you say (I think) it doesn't >>> seem to address what I was >>> suggesting/asking? (Maybe it wasn't supposed to :-) ) >>> >>> 1) Can the SP bit be turned off by default, or re-configured so >>> that the *Shibb* route is via a >>> different URL? >>> 2) Is the SP code already in HEAD? >>> >>> Although I agree having a different login route for Shibb isn't as >>> good as a Shunnel(!) releasing >>> 2.8 with different URL Shibb is better than not including it at >>> all, especially if we have to take >>> the code out of HEAD? >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> Alistair Young wrote: >>> >>>> Let me clarify first, that the issue is with bod itself, not with >>>> what Atif has produced as a shibb module. I suspect the hand of >>>> politics involved and as we all know, developers are it's servants. >>>> >>>> It would seem that local demands have impinged upon the gx >>>> philosophy >>>> of minimal disruption. e.g. the bod IdP runs without normal users' >>>> knowledge and the SP should do the same. We, the gx project as a >>>> whole, could have caught this earlier if we'd known about it but we >>>> didn't so we couldn't. As the gx project is not about custom coding >>>> to local demands then I would say it's fair to ask Atif or someone >>>> Leeds can nominate to remove the implications of those local >>>> demands >>>> and bring bod in line with the minimal philosophy. >>>> >>>> This means providing a separate shibb route into bod. We've seen it >>>> before with webauth etc so it's possible and is arguably the way it >>>> should have been. >>>> >>>> As it stands, it's unacceptable to change the way an institution's >>>> users work just so that a feature of the vle can be tested. When >>>> opening your vle to shibbed users means inconveniencing your own >>>> users, then we have failed. It's bad practice and bad publicity >>>> that >>>> will only harm bod in the long run. >>>> >>>> The Guanxi and SOCKET projects enjoy a symbiotic relationship so >>>> let's not disturb that. Instead, let's find a way out of this >>>> that is >>>> benficial to all concerned. Whether that means subcontracting to >>>> someone who knows enough about bod to implement this is a matter >>>> for >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> Indeed, we know of someone who is currently available and is fresh >>>> from testing bod and has some shibb knowledge to boot ;) >>>> >>>> Alistair >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:57, Colin Tatham wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> well, what it does mean is that >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) GX isn't done, still; >>>>>> 2) 2.8 will ship with no SP support unless we delay the 2.8 >>>>>> release >>>>>> for an indeterminate amount of time. >>>>> >>>>> Are the problems with the SP that bad that we remove it for 2.8? >>>>> I think the main one is the fact that you can't use the same login >>>>> route for Shibb and normal Bod >>>>> auth (and the fact that sysadmin has to go via /opensite/). If >>>>> it's >>>>> possible to release it with the >>>>> SP stuff turned off, it will work as normal, and if people want to >>>>> test the SP, they follow some >>>>> short instructions to enable it (and find out that they have to >>>>> now >>>>> login via /opensite/ as sysadmin)? >>>>> >>>>> Colin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If it is the case that we still haven't finished GX (with the >>>>>> SP in >>>>>> bod being a component of that), then, I suppose that we are >>>>>> beholden >>>>>> to Leeds to find the time for >>>>>> their current project, which is still giving them money, in >>>>>> order to >>>>>> complete a project for which they received all of their money >>>>>> some >>>>>> time ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for 2, all things being equal, its a ++2 from me to ship >>>>>> Bod 2.8 >>>>>> with no SP support. >>>>>> >>>>>> s >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:13, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> nae probs wee man! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:16, Atif Suleman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Alistair for the feedback: >>>>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>> title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any work on bodington-sp will have to wait until Socket >>>>>>>> project is >>>>>>>> finished at the end of the month. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ta >>>>>>>> Atif. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the SP side, Atif, can you fix the things Al has found >>>>>>>>> there, >>>>>>>>> including the documentation? We really need the SP to work >>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>> final >>>>>>>>> output for GX. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> S >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 10:38, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've updated the testing page: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>>>> title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Good work Atif on the sp module but bod itself just isn't >>>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>> an sp IMHO. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alistair >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> Colin Tatham >>>>> VLE Team >>>>> Oxford University Computing Services >>>>> >>>>> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>>>> http://bodington.org > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@ou...> - 2006-07-05 16:44:30
|
Sean Mehan wrote: > agreed. We are buying a JIRA, and have one up already at > > tracker.uhi.ac.uk > > tis great, and if people prefer it to sf, we can easily put a bod > project on it. Created myself an account, but the log-in page is hanging... -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@ou...> - 2006-07-05 16:19:28
|
Sean Mehan wrote: > Err, Colin, it doesn't need to come out of head, it merely comes out > of the branch when we split the code. OK, but you're saying someone has to take it out then? My point is that if we're going to take it out, we might as well fix it, but that depends on how much work it would be to get something that Alistair thinks would be acceptable (doesn't sound like a lot to me...) Either way, doesn't actually bother/affect me, just thought that it's not that broke (although Alistair's points are valid). Colin > On 5 Jul 2006, at 13:58, Colin Tatham wrote: > > >>Although I agree with most of what you say (I think) it doesn't >>seem to address what I was >>suggesting/asking? (Maybe it wasn't supposed to :-) ) >> >>1) Can the SP bit be turned off by default, or re-configured so >>that the *Shibb* route is via a >>different URL? >>2) Is the SP code already in HEAD? >> >>Although I agree having a different login route for Shibb isn't as >>good as a Shunnel(!) releasing >>2.8 with different URL Shibb is better than not including it at >>all, especially if we have to take >>the code out of HEAD? >> >>Colin >> >>Alistair Young wrote: >> >>>Let me clarify first, that the issue is with bod itself, not with >>>what Atif has produced as a shibb module. I suspect the hand of >>>politics involved and as we all know, developers are it's servants. >>> >>>It would seem that local demands have impinged upon the gx philosophy >>>of minimal disruption. e.g. the bod IdP runs without normal users' >>>knowledge and the SP should do the same. We, the gx project as a >>>whole, could have caught this earlier if we'd known about it but we >>>didn't so we couldn't. As the gx project is not about custom coding >>>to local demands then I would say it's fair to ask Atif or someone >>>Leeds can nominate to remove the implications of those local demands >>>and bring bod in line with the minimal philosophy. >>> >>>This means providing a separate shibb route into bod. We've seen it >>>before with webauth etc so it's possible and is arguably the way it >>>should have been. >>> >>>As it stands, it's unacceptable to change the way an institution's >>>users work just so that a feature of the vle can be tested. When >>>opening your vle to shibbed users means inconveniencing your own >>>users, then we have failed. It's bad practice and bad publicity that >>>will only harm bod in the long run. >>> >>>The Guanxi and SOCKET projects enjoy a symbiotic relationship so >>>let's not disturb that. Instead, let's find a way out of this that is >>>benficial to all concerned. Whether that means subcontracting to >>>someone who knows enough about bod to implement this is a matter for >>>discussion. >>> >>>Indeed, we know of someone who is currently available and is fresh >>>from testing bod and has some shibb knowledge to boot ;) >>> >>>Alistair >>> >>> >>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:57, Colin Tatham wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Sean Mehan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>well, what it does mean is that >>>>> >>>>>1) GX isn't done, still; >>>>>2) 2.8 will ship with no SP support unless we delay the 2.8 release >>>>>for an indeterminate amount of time. >>>> >>>>Are the problems with the SP that bad that we remove it for 2.8? >>>>I think the main one is the fact that you can't use the same login >>>>route for Shibb and normal Bod >>>>auth (and the fact that sysadmin has to go via /opensite/). If it's >>>>possible to release it with the >>>>SP stuff turned off, it will work as normal, and if people want to >>>>test the SP, they follow some >>>>short instructions to enable it (and find out that they have to now >>>>login via /opensite/ as sysadmin)? >>>> >>>>Colin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>If it is the case that we still haven't finished GX (with the SP in >>>>>bod being a component of that), then, I suppose that we are >>>>>beholden >>>>>to Leeds to find the time for >>>>>their current project, which is still giving them money, in >>>>>order to >>>>>complete a project for which they received all of their money some >>>>>time ago. >>>>> >>>>>As for 2, all things being equal, its a ++2 from me to ship Bod 2.8 >>>>>with no SP support. >>>>> >>>>>s >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:13, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>nae probs wee man! >>>>>> >>>>>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:16, Atif Suleman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks Alistair for the feedback: >>>>>>>http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Any work on bodington-sp will have to wait until Socket >>>>>>>project is >>>>>>>finished at the end of the month. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ta >>>>>>>Atif. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On the SP side, Atif, can you fix the things Al has found there, >>>>>>>>including the documentation? We really need the SP to work as a >>>>>>>>final >>>>>>>>output for GX. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>S >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 10:38, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I've updated the testing page: >>>>>>>>>http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>>>title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Good work Atif on the sp module but bod itself just isn't ready >>>>>>>>>to be >>>>>>>>>an sp IMHO. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Alistair >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>____________________________________ >>>>Colin Tatham >>>>VLE Team >>>>Oxford University Computing Services >>>> >>>>http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>>>http://bodington.org >>>> >>>>Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >>>>security? >>>>Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >>>>job easier >>>>Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >>>>Geronimo >>>>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>>>cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Bodington-developers mailing list >>>>Bod...@li... >>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>> >>> >>> >>>Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >>>security? >>>Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >>>job easier >>>Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >>>Geronimo >>>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>>cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Bodington-developers mailing list >>>Bod...@li... >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>____________________________________ >>Colin Tatham >>VLE Team >>Oxford University Computing Services >> >>http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>http://bodington.org >> >>Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >>security? >>Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >>job easier >>Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >>Geronimo >>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >>_______________________________________________ >>Bodington-developers mailing list >>Bod...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> > > > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Paul D. <pau...@ou...> - 2006-07-05 16:17:30
|
A new page in the wiki explains all the steps needed for someone to implement Bodington using a quickstart war and tomcat. Hopefully this is in simpl e language terms. This can be found at http://bodington.org/wiki/index.php?title=Quick_Installation_For_Evaluation Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Paul V Davis Acting Head, Learning Technologies Group Marketing coordinator, Bodington.org Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN Tel: 01865 283414 |
|
From: Atif S. <BM...@bm...> - 2006-07-05 15:47:12
|
Colin Tatham wrote:
>
>..... change that behaviour, so that normal users login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? Then, whether it's turned on or off makes no diff to normal users...
>
>
It's very simple to do. Add the following into bodington web.xml:
<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>Guanxi Resource Guard</filter-name>
<url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern>
</filter-mapping>
<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>building</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/spsite/*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>
Ta
Atif.
|
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-05 15:19:46
|
agreed. We are buying a JIRA, and have one up already at tracker.uhi.ac.uk tis great, and if people prefer it to sf, we can easily put a bod project on it. s On 5 Jul 2006, at 16:08, Peter Crowther wrote: > P.S. The Wiki has to be *the* worst way of tracking bugs I've ever > found, as we have no rational way of tracking dispositions or > ownership. > Can someone tell me again why we're not using the SF bug-tracker? :-/ |
|
From: Peter C. <Pet...@me...> - 2006-07-05 15:08:26
|
> From: Sean Mehan > There is some stuff outstanding from PC, who is working on it. Done, tested and committed to SF. Note that I have not fixed the following: - Export of subsections in the Logbook (documented in template that these are not exported); - Separation of bulk-uploaded files from student-uploaded files in Pigeonhole (implemented per Leeds spec and the change is large enough that someone will have to cross my palm with silver - do we therefore want to disable this for the wider release?) - MCQ sorting by "Bodington ID" (which I also took to be the user_id, Jon, and was corrected by Michael Thomas). Michael assured me that in reality they had exactly one alias per user, and hence the problems described did not happen in reality. If other sites can give me further information such that we can work out correct behaviour, I may be able to fix this pre-2.8. The reports to which these comments pertain are at http://bodington.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DTestRel2.8 in case anyone's lost the address. - Peter P.S. The Wiki has to be *the* worst way of tracking bugs I've ever found, as we have no rational way of tracking dispositions or ownership. Can someone tell me again why we're not using the SF bug-tracker? :-/ |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-05 14:14:41
|
Err, Colin, it doesn't need to come out of head, it merely comes out of the branch when we split the code. s On 5 Jul 2006, at 13:58, Colin Tatham wrote: > Although I agree with most of what you say (I think) it doesn't > seem to address what I was > suggesting/asking? (Maybe it wasn't supposed to :-) ) > > 1) Can the SP bit be turned off by default, or re-configured so > that the *Shibb* route is via a > different URL? > 2) Is the SP code already in HEAD? > > Although I agree having a different login route for Shibb isn't as > good as a Shunnel(!) releasing > 2.8 with different URL Shibb is better than not including it at > all, especially if we have to take > the code out of HEAD? > > Colin > > Alistair Young wrote: >> Let me clarify first, that the issue is with bod itself, not with >> what Atif has produced as a shibb module. I suspect the hand of >> politics involved and as we all know, developers are it's servants. >> >> It would seem that local demands have impinged upon the gx philosophy >> of minimal disruption. e.g. the bod IdP runs without normal users' >> knowledge and the SP should do the same. We, the gx project as a >> whole, could have caught this earlier if we'd known about it but we >> didn't so we couldn't. As the gx project is not about custom coding >> to local demands then I would say it's fair to ask Atif or someone >> Leeds can nominate to remove the implications of those local demands >> and bring bod in line with the minimal philosophy. >> >> This means providing a separate shibb route into bod. We've seen it >> before with webauth etc so it's possible and is arguably the way it >> should have been. >> >> As it stands, it's unacceptable to change the way an institution's >> users work just so that a feature of the vle can be tested. When >> opening your vle to shibbed users means inconveniencing your own >> users, then we have failed. It's bad practice and bad publicity that >> will only harm bod in the long run. >> >> The Guanxi and SOCKET projects enjoy a symbiotic relationship so >> let's not disturb that. Instead, let's find a way out of this that is >> benficial to all concerned. Whether that means subcontracting to >> someone who knows enough about bod to implement this is a matter for >> discussion. >> >> Indeed, we know of someone who is currently available and is fresh >> from testing bod and has some shibb knowledge to boot ;) >> >> Alistair >> >> >> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:57, Colin Tatham wrote: >> >> >>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>> >>>> well, what it does mean is that >>>> >>>> 1) GX isn't done, still; >>>> 2) 2.8 will ship with no SP support unless we delay the 2.8 release >>>> for an indeterminate amount of time. >>> >>> Are the problems with the SP that bad that we remove it for 2.8? >>> I think the main one is the fact that you can't use the same login >>> route for Shibb and normal Bod >>> auth (and the fact that sysadmin has to go via /opensite/). If it's >>> possible to release it with the >>> SP stuff turned off, it will work as normal, and if people want to >>> test the SP, they follow some >>> short instructions to enable it (and find out that they have to now >>> login via /opensite/ as sysadmin)? >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> >>>> If it is the case that we still haven't finished GX (with the SP in >>>> bod being a component of that), then, I suppose that we are >>>> beholden >>>> to Leeds to find the time for >>>> their current project, which is still giving them money, in >>>> order to >>>> complete a project for which they received all of their money some >>>> time ago. >>>> >>>> As for 2, all things being equal, its a ++2 from me to ship Bod 2.8 >>>> with no SP support. >>>> >>>> s >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:13, Alistair Young wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> nae probs wee man! >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:16, Atif Suleman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Alistair for the feedback: >>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>> title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>> >>>>>> Any work on bodington-sp will have to wait until Socket >>>>>> project is >>>>>> finished at the end of the month. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ta >>>>>> Atif. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On the SP side, Atif, can you fix the things Al has found there, >>>>>>> including the documentation? We really need the SP to work as a >>>>>>> final >>>>>>> output for GX. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> S >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 10:38, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've updated the testing page: >>>>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>> title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good work Atif on the sp module but bod itself just isn't ready >>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>> an sp IMHO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alistair >>>>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________________________ >>> Colin Tatham >>> VLE Team >>> Oxford University Computing Services >>> >>> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>> http://bodington.org >>> >>> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >>> security? >>> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >>> job easier >>> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >>> Geronimo >>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>> Bod...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> >> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >> security? >> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >> job easier >> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >> Geronimo >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> > > > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-07-05 13:40:48
|
I have just had a phone call about this: http://echo.gmu.edu/toolcenter-wiki/index.php?title=Project_Pad You can find more by following the Spoke Word at NW link. Anyone seen/heard of it? s |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@ou...> - 2006-07-05 13:24:26
|
Alistair Young wrote: >>different login route for Shibb isn't as good as a Shunnel(!) > > they're the same! a shunnel (cringe) is just another route into an > app via shibb. In this case it's a different url, /site/ > bs_template_shibb_login.html or something. I thought a shunnel (AY cringes) was a single page where users have to choose the login method, i.e. at the *same* URL as any other login point... > the issue is that the SP is too "invasive" for normal use. It can't > be used in a production bod as when it's turned on, all users must > login via it or via /opensite and when it's turned off they have to > revert to using the normal login in /site. Yes, I understand that, but why is it so much work to change that behaviour, so that normal users login via /site/ and Shibb users via /xyz/? Then, whether it's turned on or off makes no diff to normal users... > The code can stay in head and won't delay 2.8. OK, I though someone had suggested that it had to be removed... > What will delay 2.8 is > waiting for a shibb url to be implemented so that bod can be > advertised as an sp in 2.8 > > Alistair > > > On 5 Jul 2006, at 13:58, Colin Tatham wrote: > > >>Although I agree with most of what you say (I think) it doesn't >>seem to address what I was >>suggesting/asking? (Maybe it wasn't supposed to :-) ) >> >>1) Can the SP bit be turned off by default, or re-configured so >>that the *Shibb* route is via a >>different URL? >>2) Is the SP code already in HEAD? >> >>Although I agree having a different login route for Shibb isn't as >>good as a Shunnel(!) releasing >>2.8 with different URL Shibb is better than not including it at >>all, especially if we have to take >>the code out of HEAD? >> >>Colin >> >>Alistair Young wrote: >> >>>Let me clarify first, that the issue is with bod itself, not with >>>what Atif has produced as a shibb module. I suspect the hand of >>>politics involved and as we all know, developers are it's servants. >>> >>>It would seem that local demands have impinged upon the gx philosophy >>>of minimal disruption. e.g. the bod IdP runs without normal users' >>>knowledge and the SP should do the same. We, the gx project as a >>>whole, could have caught this earlier if we'd known about it but we >>>didn't so we couldn't. As the gx project is not about custom coding >>>to local demands then I would say it's fair to ask Atif or someone >>>Leeds can nominate to remove the implications of those local demands >>>and bring bod in line with the minimal philosophy. >>> >>>This means providing a separate shibb route into bod. We've seen it >>>before with webauth etc so it's possible and is arguably the way it >>>should have been. >>> >>>As it stands, it's unacceptable to change the way an institution's >>>users work just so that a feature of the vle can be tested. When >>>opening your vle to shibbed users means inconveniencing your own >>>users, then we have failed. It's bad practice and bad publicity that >>>will only harm bod in the long run. >>> >>>The Guanxi and SOCKET projects enjoy a symbiotic relationship so >>>let's not disturb that. Instead, let's find a way out of this that is >>>benficial to all concerned. Whether that means subcontracting to >>>someone who knows enough about bod to implement this is a matter for >>>discussion. >>> >>>Indeed, we know of someone who is currently available and is fresh >>>from testing bod and has some shibb knowledge to boot ;) >>> >>>Alistair >>> >>> >>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:57, Colin Tatham wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Sean Mehan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>well, what it does mean is that >>>>> >>>>>1) GX isn't done, still; >>>>>2) 2.8 will ship with no SP support unless we delay the 2.8 release >>>>>for an indeterminate amount of time. >>>> >>>>Are the problems with the SP that bad that we remove it for 2.8? >>>>I think the main one is the fact that you can't use the same login >>>>route for Shibb and normal Bod >>>>auth (and the fact that sysadmin has to go via /opensite/). If it's >>>>possible to release it with the >>>>SP stuff turned off, it will work as normal, and if people want to >>>>test the SP, they follow some >>>>short instructions to enable it (and find out that they have to now >>>>login via /opensite/ as sysadmin)? >>>> >>>>Colin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>If it is the case that we still haven't finished GX (with the SP in >>>>>bod being a component of that), then, I suppose that we are >>>>>beholden >>>>>to Leeds to find the time for >>>>>their current project, which is still giving them money, in >>>>>order to >>>>>complete a project for which they received all of their money some >>>>>time ago. >>>>> >>>>>As for 2, all things being equal, its a ++2 from me to ship Bod 2.8 >>>>>with no SP support. >>>>> >>>>>s >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:13, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>nae probs wee man! >>>>>> >>>>>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:16, Atif Suleman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks Alistair for the feedback: >>>>>>>http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Any work on bodington-sp will have to wait until Socket >>>>>>>project is >>>>>>>finished at the end of the month. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ta >>>>>>>Atif. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On the SP side, Atif, can you fix the things Al has found there, >>>>>>>>including the documentation? We really need the SP to work as a >>>>>>>>final >>>>>>>>output for GX. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>S >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 5 Jul 2006, at 10:38, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I've updated the testing page: >>>>>>>>>http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>>>title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Good work Atif on the sp module but bod itself just isn't ready >>>>>>>>>to be >>>>>>>>>an sp IMHO. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Alistair >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>____________________________________ >>>>Colin Tatham >>>>VLE Team >>>>Oxford University Computing Services >>>> >>>>http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>>>http://bodington.org -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-07-05 13:07:22
|
> Can the SP bit be turned off by default it's off by default > re-configured so that the *Shibb* route is via a > different URL? that's what I was talking about - there needs to be some dev work to implement the new shibb url > Is the SP code already in HEAD? yes > have to take > the code out of HEAD? no > different login route for Shibb isn't as good as a Shunnel(!) they're the same! a shunnel (cringe) is just another route into an app via shibb. In this case it's a different url, /site/ bs_template_shibb_login.html or something. the issue is that the SP is too "invasive" for normal use. It can't be used in a production bod as when it's turned on, all users must login via it or via /opensite and when it's turned off they have to revert to using the normal login in /site. The code can stay in head and won't delay 2.8. What will delay 2.8 is waiting for a shibb url to be implemented so that bod can be advertised as an sp in 2.8 Alistair On 5 Jul 2006, at 13:58, Colin Tatham wrote: > Although I agree with most of what you say (I think) it doesn't > seem to address what I was > suggesting/asking? (Maybe it wasn't supposed to :-) ) > > 1) Can the SP bit be turned off by default, or re-configured so > that the *Shibb* route is via a > different URL? > 2) Is the SP code already in HEAD? > > Although I agree having a different login route for Shibb isn't as > good as a Shunnel(!) releasing > 2.8 with different URL Shibb is better than not including it at > all, especially if we have to take > the code out of HEAD? > > Colin > > Alistair Young wrote: >> Let me clarify first, that the issue is with bod itself, not with >> what Atif has produced as a shibb module. I suspect the hand of >> politics involved and as we all know, developers are it's servants. >> >> It would seem that local demands have impinged upon the gx philosophy >> of minimal disruption. e.g. the bod IdP runs without normal users' >> knowledge and the SP should do the same. We, the gx project as a >> whole, could have caught this earlier if we'd known about it but we >> didn't so we couldn't. As the gx project is not about custom coding >> to local demands then I would say it's fair to ask Atif or someone >> Leeds can nominate to remove the implications of those local demands >> and bring bod in line with the minimal philosophy. >> >> This means providing a separate shibb route into bod. We've seen it >> before with webauth etc so it's possible and is arguably the way it >> should have been. >> >> As it stands, it's unacceptable to change the way an institution's >> users work just so that a feature of the vle can be tested. When >> opening your vle to shibbed users means inconveniencing your own >> users, then we have failed. It's bad practice and bad publicity that >> will only harm bod in the long run. >> >> The Guanxi and SOCKET projects enjoy a symbiotic relationship so >> let's not disturb that. Instead, let's find a way out of this that is >> benficial to all concerned. Whether that means subcontracting to >> someone who knows enough about bod to implement this is a matter for >> discussion. >> >> Indeed, we know of someone who is currently available and is fresh >> from testing bod and has some shibb knowledge to boot ;) >> >> Alistair >> >> >> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:57, Colin Tatham wrote: >> >> >>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>> >>>> well, what it does mean is that >>>> >>>> 1) GX isn't done, still; >>>> 2) 2.8 will ship with no SP support unless we delay the 2.8 release >>>> for an indeterminate amount of time. >>> >>> Are the problems with the SP that bad that we remove it for 2.8? >>> I think the main one is the fact that you can't use the same login >>> route for Shibb and normal Bod >>> auth (and the fact that sysadmin has to go via /opensite/). If it's >>> possible to release it with the >>> SP stuff turned off, it will work as normal, and if people want to >>> test the SP, they follow some >>> short instructions to enable it (and find out that they have to now >>> login via /opensite/ as sysadmin)? >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> >>>> If it is the case that we still haven't finished GX (with the SP in >>>> bod being a component of that), then, I suppose that we are >>>> beholden >>>> to Leeds to find the time for >>>> their current project, which is still giving them money, in >>>> order to >>>> complete a project for which they received all of their money some >>>> time ago. >>>> >>>> As for 2, all things being equal, its a ++2 from me to ship Bod 2.8 >>>> with no SP support. >>>> >>>> s >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:13, Alistair Young wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> nae probs wee man! >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:16, Atif Suleman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Alistair for the feedback: >>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>> title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>> >>>>>> Any work on bodington-sp will have to wait until Socket >>>>>> project is >>>>>> finished at the end of the month. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ta >>>>>> Atif. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sean Mehan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On the SP side, Atif, can you fix the things Al has found there, >>>>>>> including the documentation? We really need the SP to work as a >>>>>>> final >>>>>>> output for GX. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> S >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2006, at 10:38, Alistair Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've updated the testing page: >>>>>>>> http://www.bodington.org/wiki/index.php? >>>>>>>> title=TestRel2.8#Shibboleth_Functionality >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good work Atif on the sp module but bod itself just isn't ready >>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>> an sp IMHO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alistair >>>>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________________________ >>> Colin Tatham >>> VLE Team >>> Oxford University Computing Services >>> >>> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>> http://bodington.org >>> >>> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >>> security? >>> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >>> job easier >>> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >>> Geronimo >>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>> Bod...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> >> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, >> security? >> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your >> job easier >> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache >> Geronimo >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> > > > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Atif S. <BM...@bm...> - 2006-07-05 13:02:40
|
>1) Can the SP bit be turned off by default, or re-configured so that the *Shibb* route is via a >different URL? > By default it is turned off. >2) Is the SP code already in HEAD? > > It's been in head for 5 months. Ta Atif. |
19 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
