Re: [Muddleftpd-users] about auth modules, etc

[Beau Kuiper]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:58, Oskar Liljeblad wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I was very happy to see that development of muddleftpd had
> resumed. I signed up for a Savannah account today, hopefully
> being able to contribute code to muddleftpd in the future. :)
>
> Anyway, I checked out the latest CVS sources and looked at it.
> I'm interested in the new module-based framework with modules
> for auth and logging, etc. (Why not also modules for custom
> filesystem/directory managers, and ftp extension commands?)

At the moment modules only exist to perform authentication. This will probably 
change in the future, but at the moment, I am more focused on documentation 
of what we have.

>
> Apparently the auth modules stuff was added very recently, so
> maybe much of it is in active development and about to change.
> From what I can see each module was designed to replace
> eachother, so that at max one module can be loaded at a time.
> Maybe I'm wrong. But if this is the case, would it not be
> smarter to have each module export one symbol, a structure
> or something that would contain the modules all exported
> functions?

Nope, authentication modules have existed sine 1.3.1. (and got revised in 
1.3.4) Since they only exist for a specific task (authentication), they are 
only loaded when checking the username/passwords users provide. (after the 
PASS command) They coexist perfectly fine, since no more than one 
authentication module is ever loaded at one time. (if you have multiple 
groups with different authentication modules, the modules will get loaded one 
after the other until password is matched.

>
> I'm interested in contributing to this code so I would like to
> know if there are any plans or anyone working on this
> already.

I do have plans, but they are in the back seat at the moment until the 
documentation is fully written. Since the documentation is a big task, it may 
be awhile.

>
> Btw, some (long) time ago I wrote a patch that would make
> symbolic links look like regular files/directories to
> users. (I couldn't live without this option.) It was implemented
> as an additional access mode. Is there any interest in such
> a feature? I could fresh up the patch for the CVS version of
> muddleftpd.
>

I would intergrate that (and probably another blanket option to hide ALL 
symbolic links) as long as it doesn't interfere with other features.

Beau Kuiper
address@hidden