On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS @ Pike
developers forum <[email protected]> wrote:
> Issue: Pike security system
[...]
> Also, the security system isn't used at all to my (mast's) knowledge,
> and it is not even compiled in by default (has to be enabled with a
> configure flag).
>
> All this leads to the conclusion that it is easiest to ignore the
> security system altogether, and if possible leave it as it is with the
> option to get it working later.
I do not use it currently, but I have always kept in mind that I could
and planned to eventually look at it and then shield user supplied
plugins (once we start supporting them at all) etc. in ppp ("chat
server", although it is more a framework and intends to transport
anything, not only chat messages). I do not know anything specific
about the security system at all, but I programmed LPC (LDMud-flavour)
before resorting to Pike and therefore I assume that the Pike security
system is somewhat like that, or at least you can achieve the same
goals with it. Of course, my impression may be terribly wrong.
On the other hand, most of what I would need (or even: most of what
can be done with the security system) can be achieved by using a
CompilationHandler and a little getting-your-hands-dirty-effort, at
least that's what I suspect and so it is probably not a too big loss.
I'd need to know more about it to give a well thought through opinion,
but the thing I heard of the Pike security system first is that it is
sparsely documented. Or is it?
