Blum, Jason (SAA) wrote: > > From an ISP's perspective, would it not be a God-send to put all clients > in one big, heavily restricted sandbox (no datasources, etc.) and all > datasource-accessing CFC's and other extensions in another sandbox to > which only the ISP administrator has posting rights?
Apart from the fact that it can't be done because of the Java security model, what does it give you that sandboxes don't give you now? > Or consider a simpler example: You don't want clients CFEXECUTING some > local executable. With a shared instance that is a very bad idea indeed. > But you do want to allow them to drop into their code > a custom tag that can execute that local executable because in that tag > you have some logic or something that lets you fix parameters or > something. I don't really see a reason why customers would want to run any executable at all. And if they want it really bad they can always get hosting running their own instance. Or go up and down the protocol stack. > Have I missed something fundamental or would this not be a boon to > ISP's?! I would not want to be hosted on a server where I can't write my own logic to access databases and/or the file system. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
