I planned on pushing only database record IDs to the server, but maybe I could encrypt/decrypt those IDs when sending them over the wire. From looking at the server source, it is utilizing TCPSocket, so there is an opportunity I believe to layer SSL. Given some time, I'll investigate this further, as this seems to be a better solution in the long run in my opinion. -Jim
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ryan Leavengood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/21/08, Jim Salinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for replay David, I just did a search and only found a mention of > drb > > in a unit test and from digging around backgroundrb seems to have been > > rewritten recently without drb. If this incorrect, someone please correct > > me. :-) > > BackgrounDRb has not used DRb for sometime, the name is just a bit > misleading now ;) > > It was switched to use a event framework a while ago and more recently > has switched to the pure Ruby 'packet' library. > > As far as I can tell packet does not support SSL, but I am far from an > expert on the subject. I assume you have some sensitive data you need > to pass to BackgrounDRb from Rails that you don't want in the clear? > > Maybe you could just use the database to pass that information, only > passing database IDs or unique tokens to BackgrounDRb for it to load > the information. Of course depending on your database the information > may still get passed around in the clear... > > Ryan >
_______________________________________________ Backgroundrb-devel mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel
