Re: Re: Beepcore-java-users digest, Vol 1 #76- 8 msgs

Kevin Kress wrote:
> I am more interested in situations where the profile already exists and
> the application designer wishes to layer security/authentication under
> it.  This would allow the security layer to exist without the profile
> having to expressly know the security is there.

Right. This can already be done for TLS. Otherwise, you're saying everyone
with credentials on the server can run all the operations via this profile
identically. I don't think that's actually going to be too common.

Putting a call in the start routine that says "is my configuration flag set?
If so, is the user name non-empty? If so, go ahead" makes sense. The profile
is still going to have to generate a profile-specific message denying
permission to open the channel.

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
   ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

They looked up at me like I was a T-bone steak
  walking into an all-you-can-eat seafood buffet.


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf