[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DotGNU]Re: [Project-Proposal]<Original>FreeGate
From: |
Khen Ofek |
Subject: |
[DotGNU]Re: [Project-Proposal]<Original>FreeGate |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:44:33 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010628 |
Hi
I wrote:
Description: This project will define and implement a general
interface for web services. Authentication will be treated
like a web service.
Take a look at the initial design at :
http://www.cheno.f2s.com/FreeGate2.htm <http://www.cheno.f2s.com/FreeGate2.html>
I want to explain my underline ideas regarding FreeGate.
I have defined FreeGate interface to be an abstract interface. This
interface should be self contained (i.e. it should define all the
concepts that we use inside FreeGate system). If I understood correctly
this is what Barry calls spec proposal
After we will decide on such an abstract interface we should implement
it using binding to known (and future) forms of communication systems.
This can be called a project proposal (i.e. a project will define the
binding and will implement the abstract interface on specific platforms
using this binding).
Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
Hello,
First, at first glance, this seems to overlap with the RLS and Tokens
documents in some areas. I'd suggest that you look at those two
documents and try to fit your spec into that general ideology. Of
course, if something doesn't seem to fit quite right in those documents
to you, please post about the issue in the address@hidden list.
I want to try to specify the connections between FreeGate and RLS+Tokens
specs:
As I see it we can define a binding of FreeGate inteface to the RLS
framework.
For example :
FreeGate's ServiceID will be the string |<DotGNU Service>| in RLS.
GateProtocol for RLS will be defined as the pair : <"RLS",host name>. I
mean that AccessMethod = "RLS" and AccessData=host name.
FreeGate's UniqueID will be the username in RLS.
Lets look at the exmaple in the FreeGate document:ServiceID="login",
GateRoles={"PasswordGate","Client"}, Data=Password (a string)
A request for the login service to a service provider that have the
ability to talk RLS can be:
rls://address@hidden/login?RLS, <host name for
PasswordGate>,<my Password>
now the service provider will have to contact the PasswordGate to
"validate" the user:
rls://address@hidden/validateUser?Client,Password
We can also call the service provider using PasswordGate of SELF to
indicate that the service provider should validate the user internally:
rls://address@hidden/login?SELF,<my Password>
I am sure we can define a formal binding once the FreeGate and the RLS
specs will be finalize.
The Tokens spec is a way to pass data between clients and servers.
Because the FreeGate interface is an abstract interface and the Tokens
method is a general way to pass data it is very simple to define binding
of the Data in FreeGate to Tokens.
Because RLS+Tokens is a general communication and data framework it
should not be too difficult to bind the abstract FreeGate interface to
this framework. But the RLS+Tokens is new framework which is not
implemented yet. For that reason I think that first we should define
binding of FreeGate to more established ways of communications and if we
find them unsatisfactory then we can go to RLS+Tokens.
For exmaple : why not define binding of FreeGate to standard CGI interface?
Note that the RLS interface is very similar to CGI.
The request will be something like that :
http://ServiceProvider.com/login?DotGNU-CGI,<host name for
PasswordGate>,Client,<my Password>
And then we need to implement a simple CGI script that the web masters
can use with current framework (servers, communication protocols etc.)
Khen Ofek
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [DotGNU]Re: [Project-Proposal]<Original>FreeGate,
Khen Ofek <=