From: Chuck E. <Chu...@ya...> - 2004-03-17 11:02:16
|
(this is my second send, the first did not seem to take) On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:09:25 -0800, Chris Barker wrote: >=A0Paul Boddie wrote: > > >>=A0With Apache-based applications, it would seem that you have to >>=A0get Apache to "protect" the authorised areas of your site, and >>=A0from Webware (and other components outside Apache) you apparently >>=A0have no such fine-grained control over the >>=A0authentication/authorisation process itself. >> > >=A0OK, so what are people doing for WebWare sites that require >=A0Authentication/Authorisation? > >=A0I'm just starting on a Web app that will reuire a pretty flexible >=A0authorization scheme -- what people see at any given URL could be >=A0quite different depending on who they are. > >=A0Is there anything useful in UserKit to build on? > > >=A0Has Chuck Esterbrook abandoned us? LOL. Well I don't know if that answer has a yes or no to it. I've made quite= a few improvements to MiddleKit recently, but as with all of my= enhancements over the past year, they were driven by the project I was= working on. I'm an independent contractor paid by the hour and combined with the fact= that Webware does what I need, I'm not very proactive any more about= extending it just for the sake of extending. But I'd gladly accept a= contract to do so! Just so we're clear, I continue to use Webware in multiple production= environments and it chugs along nicely. Getting back to UserKit, it was designed publicly through this mailing list= and I laid down some initial code including MiddleKit storage and a test= suite. I was expecting others to provide the file storage and chip in other= code, but I guess there hasn't been interest. AFAIK Webware developers are "rolling their own". The upshot is you get= exactly what you need and no more. The down side is that I imagine a lot of= sites could actually share user-related code and save themselves some time,= but don't. -Chuck -- http://ChuckEsterbrook.com/ |