next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
On Aug 11, 7:40pm, Mica Currie wrote:
} > On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Ian White wrote:
} > > John Nemeth wrote:
} > > > On Aug 5, 11:00am, Jeff Warnica wrote:
} > > >
} > > > I think it will be several years yet before Community Nets can
} > > > move completely away from standard text logins. At this time it is
} > > > [snip]
} > >
} > > > I would like to get comments from other CSuite users/sites on the
} > > > above.
} > >
} > > This is one of the major things that has come up from VTN users since the
} > > announcement of upcoming PPP. Many users with lowend machines fear that
} > > [snip]
}
} I really thing that people are missing the point here.... the question was
} on regards to the future of the CSuite backend that provides things like
} user management and configuration. Currently it is stored in a directory
Although that is how the thread started out, Jeff said that
(paraphrased) "CSuite 2.0 will probably not look anything like CSuite
1.0 and it will be centered around the Web and PPP". Note that this is
his opinion only. This was the point that I brought the thread onto
csuite-dev.
} structure (namedb) and other associated places database that is difficult
} to work with and requires site maintainers and Csuite Developers to
} jump through a lot of hoops to do simple information retrieval let alone
} updates...
I would disagree with this statement. Updates are a breeze since
you just tag a new entry on the end. Reading isn't particularly hard
either: you just read the whole record and if you find duplicate tags,
just throw out the earlier ones (unless you want them so that you know
the history).
} The question was whether we should move to a SQL backend for storing this
} information so that the database managment software would take care of
} most of the complexity and csuite maintainers and developers could focus
} on actually providing features for csuite users.
}
} Using a SQL backend will not preclude you from having text dialup... the
} question was raised in the sense that new features such as radius and PPP
} support are straining the capabilities of the current backend because of
} it's complex and mostly undocumented behavior.
Actually the main reason for using an SQL backend was because
Michael wanted to use PHP3 for some administrative scripts, and
supposedly PHP3 isn't capable of handling namedb but it has built-in
support for mysql. Personally, I think this is a rather silly reason
to change the entire backend. There may be valid reasons for changing
the backend, but I don't believe this is it. I would like to see some
better reasons before embarking on a project of this magnitude.
As for RADIUS and PPP support, it is irrelevant. Whether or not a
user is allowed to use PPP is simply another field in the namedb
record. The front end code has to be written to display and manipulate
that field, but this would need to be done regardless of what the
backend is. The same goes for making an interface between the RADIUS
server and the backend.
}-- End of excerpt from Mica Currie
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects