What is the advantage of putting complex data in a client variable anyway? Why would you not just have multiple client variables like: client.authenicated, client.userid, client.password, client.firstname, client.lastname...?
-Drew Harris Jeff Peters wrote: > Well, you're not required to use WDDX, but the client scope will only > accept simple data types, so you must convert > the structure to a simple data type. Using WDDX is an easy way to do > that. > > - Jeff > > On 4 Jun 2002 at 14:30, Troy Murray wrote: > > > > > So let me make sure I have this straight. If I use CLIENT VARIABLES, I > > cannot use the structure > > that I'm currently keeping in a SESSION VARIABLE without performing some > > type of WDDX > > conversion back and forth? > > > > -T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:38 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > > > My 2 cents. I think using client variables for the security aspect is > > great. But I also know that > > usually the bottleneck in an application are those darn database calls. > > Considering this, I think it > > would handicap you greatly to limit your thinking one way or the other > > exculsively. I think even in a > > clustered enviroments, you would benifit moving client variables that > > have extensive calls to > > session variables for the pupose of reading within the app. > > > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Chastain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:10 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > > > For the original question ... I tend to build a fuseaction (checkLogin) > > that I can use > > cfmodule to call and check the users credentials. That way the actual > > check code is > > encapsulated in the login circuit (i.e. my current circuit only needs to > > know the user is > > logged in, not how to check for it). With the cfmodule call, I can also > > put it in individual > > fuseactions rather than trying to secure a whole circuit. So far it > > seems to work well and > > nobody has offered a reason yet not to do so (I can already here them > > coming ;-)) > > > > On the second point, I as well have always stuck to client variables. > > The primary reason is just > > being lazy - I did not want to have to mess with locking session or app. > > variables. I have not had > > to deal with a clustered environment, but that would be a definite > > reason to avoid them. I have > > been debating trying session variables again now that MX does not > > require locking, but my client > > variables work fine - why would I need session variables? > > > > -- Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Timothy Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:25 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > > > I know the question wasn't directed at me, but as I only use client > > vars, I think I can add an > > answer. > > > > Ease of use. > > > > No locking. Ever. I don't feel the need to use application or server > > scoped variables either. What > > little I may loose by not using them, I make up for in performance. No > > variables maintained in > > memory, no fear of those variables getting corrupted. It's client > > variables, stored in a DB for me > > all the way. > > > > Tim. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Troy Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:39 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login > > > > Drew, > > > > I'm curious, other then having clustered environments, was there > > anything else that lead you to > > use CLIENT vs. SESSION variables? > > > > -T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drew Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:49 PM > > To: Fusebox List > > Subject: Re: forcing user to login > > > > I used session then at the last Fusebox conference got hammered about > > questions > > regarding it in the session I gave about using Fusebox for Enterprise > > applications > > when I was talking about this security app that I had built. > > Now I use a client variable, session variables are dangerous in > > clustered > > environments. > > > > And to answer your question, I put mine at the top of the fbx_switch > > page just before > > my cfswitch begins. > > > > -Drew Harris > > > > On 5/31/02 4:17 PM, "Tom Schreck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Where�s the best place to put the logic to check for the presence of a > > session variable to > > determine if the user should be forced to login? The session variable > > indicated the user > > has logged in. The absence of one indicates the user needs to login. > > I�ve tried the > > fbx_Setting in the root circuit, but it�s not working. > > > > > > > > Thanks - > > > > > > > > Tom Schreck > > > > 817-252-4900 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > I have not failed. I've found 10,000 ways that won't work. > > > > > > > > - Thomas Edison > > > > > > > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
