[Mojolicious] Executing tasks in the backend ?

[Luc Larochelle]

Hi Everyone,

Given that application X is owned by it's generic user (userX) and that a 
Webapp is owned by another generic user(Y), what's the best way to share 
permissions between the users so that application X can be called by a a 
request to the WebApp ?

Also, is it a good thing to separate applications from the Webapp in 
distinct users , or should it all be part of a whole ? 

Your advice and comments will be very appreciated.

Cheers,

Luc


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to mojolicious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mojolicious@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Mojolicious] Mojolicious::Plugin::JSUrlFor

[Viktor Nacht]

Oh wow, thank you. That’s very helpful advice. At a minimum I’ll avoid, but it 
is pretty simple but also very powerful plug-in.

Thanks! - V

> On Nov 2, 2018, at 07:19, Stefan Adams  > wrote:
> 
> I have (tho large is very relative :). I think the biggest specific concern 
> is that it may break with deprecations in Mojolicious.
> 
> I'd suggest reaching out to the author to see if they are still able to 
> maintain it if you submit a bug report or PR, or if they would be willing to 
> transfer it to you. Alternatively, you could fork it.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 5:33 PM Viktor Nacht   wrote:
> Has anyone used this project in a larger project? It fits my philosophy 
> perfectly, but I'm concerned it hasn't been updated recently. It definitely 
> fills a niche for maximum freedom of route management. - V
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Mojolicious" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to mojolicious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to mojolicious@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
> Groups "Mojolicious" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mojolicious/PVBYt-5xqkk/unsubscribe 
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> mojolicious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to mojolicious@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to mojolicious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mojolicious@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Mojolicious] Executing tasks in the backend ?

[Stefan Adams]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:18 PM Luc Larochelle  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> Given that application X is owned by it's generic user (userX) and that a
> Webapp is owned by another generic user(Y), what's the best way to share
> permissions between the users so that application X can be called by a a
> request to the WebApp ?
>

Is the primary question about the best way to handle permissions between
two users?  IMO, either put both users in the same group, or use extended
ACLs .  I used
to use them quite a bit when I managed file servers with Samba and it was
great!


> Also, is it a good thing to separate applications from the Webapp in
> distinct users , or should it all be part of a whole ?
>

I think the general rule of thumb is separations are good, but of course
you need something in place to allow exchange of information.  ACLs work.
Other things could work, too.  But ACLs proly easiest.  Best answer proly
depends on a lot...

The objective to what you're asking, of course, is if one of your systems
gets hacked, the other shouldn't be affected.  If the system A gets hacked
with user A, system B with user B will be "protected".  Is system A and
system B both use user C, a breach of system A *or* system B would effect
the other.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to mojolicious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mojolicious@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.