On Apr 25, 2007, at 19:06 , Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Yi Qiang wrote: > >> On Apr 25, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote: >> >>> On Apr 25, 2007, at 13:28 , alex clemesha wrote: >>> >>> Having said that, might it be a good idea to allow 'locking' of this >>> feature (perhaps with password protection)? I can foresee >>> situations >>> in which this would be useful. [snip] > About the random job ids, sounds like "security through obscurity" to > me. There's already the concept of job ownership, and levels of trust > controlling who can submit/process a job, so I think (long term at > least) that infrastructure could be used to control viewing (or even > showing up in the list). Agreed. If that can work simply and "intuitively", it's a big improvement over obscurity... Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large, Director Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income -------- The path of least resistance: it's not just for electricity any more. -------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
