Hi!
Sorry for off-topic.
What is the motivation behind creation of Foolscap (newpb)? What does it
solve that can't be solved by old PB?
Thank you
On 13 January 2013 07:48, Glyph wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:29 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
>
> On 03:15 am, abhishekb...@hotmail.com
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013, at 6:39, Glyph wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Peter Westlake
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 18:02, Glyph wrote
> >> On Jan 9, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Peter Westlake
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Jan 9, Adi wrote:
> I am not an expert in Twisted, but from my understa
Interesting... those portals could be on different Realms too. It would
also allow more than one checker to be tried per interface, which would
allow (say) a credentials.IUsernamePassword to be tried against
different checkers.
Peter.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013, at 14:08, Itamar Turner-Trauring wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Peter Westlake wrote:
> Interesting... those portals could be on different Realms too. It would
> also allow more than one checker to be tried per interface, which would
> allow (say) a credentials.IUsernamePassword to be tried against different
> checkers.
>
In
The Foolscap website describes the principal features (as differences to
PB):
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/wiki/FoolscapFeatures
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Maxim Lacrima wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for off-topic.
>
> What is the motivation behind creation of Foolscap (newpb)? What does it
>
On 14 January 2013 15:40, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> wrote:
> The Foolscap website describes the principal features (as differences to
> PB):
>
> http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/wiki/FoolscapFeatures
>
>
Thank you!
--
with regards,
Maxim
___
Twi
On Jan 14, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Peter Westlake wrote:
>> It seems like the "shared caching reference" would solve this problem
>> as well?
>
> Yes, I think that's the right answer. It's certainly the right design
> in my case, and perhaps in the general case too.
I think that this is the right des
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 22:58, Glyph wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Peter Westlake
> wrote:
>
> >> It seems like the "shared caching reference" would solve this problem
> >> as well?
> >
> > Yes, I think that's the right answer. It's certainly the right design
> > in my case, and perhaps
On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Peter Westlake wrote:
> The main question left in my mind is about the degree of dependency
> between the checker and the realm if extra information is passed,
> by whatever method. If the realm expects the checker to pass it
> (for instance) an LDAP session, then it
Am 14.01.2013 um 23:58 schrieb Glyph :
>>> It seems like the "shared caching reference" would solve this problem
>>> as well?
>>
>> Yes, I think that's the right answer. It's certainly the right design
>> in my case, and perhaps in the general case too.
>
> I think that this is the right design
10 matches
Mail list logo
