[sstorm-discuss] Re: SandStorm, etc.
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
idanso
From: Michael H. <Mic...@pd...> - 2001-05-20 22:12:18
|
Just subscribed myself... Tell me more about your intentions for an internal web server. I see two needs: 1.)the web server service and 2.)a web server component for every service provider. The second can be used to configure and potentially monitor the service provider. BTW this is what Tivoli's end-point agent does today. The agent has a limited web server letting administrators look at log files, view currently installed methods, etc. While it is a good thing to have, security is paramount. Are these two things in the spirit of what you were talking about? Michael Idan Sofer writes: > > > I'm adding Dan Kuykendall to the long CC. > hopefully once people subscribe to the mailing list we will not need those > long ugly CC's, but at the mean time...:) > > On Sun, 20 May 2001, Michael Hay wrote: > > > I failed to communicate what I was intending for LDAP. It should be > > suitable for storage of the registry information only. To service > > requestors (clients) they have no clue about LDAP at all. They only > > request the registry service from a registry service provider. So we could > > just as easily replace LDAP with SQL, a file, a mail store accessed via > > IMAP, a file and directory structure, etc. So exposing LDAP to the end > Oh, that's great! The registry i wrote was mainly a proof-of-concept. it > is slow, and it doesn't have scalability in mine. > > Alternative implementation will be welcome! > > > Idan. > |