Hi!
Sorry for off-topic.
What is the motivation behind creation of Foolscap (newpb)? What does it
solve that can't be solved by old PB?
Thank you
On 13 January 2013 07:48, Glyph gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:29 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 03:15 am,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013, at 6:39, Glyph wrote:
On Jan 10, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Peter Westlake peter.westl...@pobox.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 18:02, Glyph wrote
On Jan 9, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Peter Westlake peter.westl...@pobox.com
wrote:
On Jan 9, Adi wrote:
I am not an expert in
Interesting... those portals could be on different Realms too. It would
also allow more than one checker to be tried per interface, which would
allow (say) a credentials.IUsernamePassword to be tried against
different checkers.
Peter.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013, at 14:08, Itamar Turner-Trauring wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Peter Westlake peter.westl...@pobox.comwrote:
Interesting... those portals could be on different Realms too. It would
also allow more than one checker to be tried per interface, which would
allow (say) a credentials.IUsernamePassword to be tried against
The Foolscap website describes the principal features (as differences to
PB):
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/wiki/FoolscapFeatures
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Maxim Lacrima lacrima.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi!
Sorry for off-topic.
What is the motivation behind creation of Foolscap
On 14 January 2013 15:40, Laurens Van Houtven _...@lvh.cc wrote:
The Foolscap website describes the principal features (as differences to
PB):
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/wiki/FoolscapFeatures
Thank you!
--
with regards,
Maxim
___
On Jan 14, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Peter Westlake peter.westl...@pobox.com wrote:
It seems like the shared caching reference would solve this problem
as well?
Yes, I think that's the right answer. It's certainly the right design
in my case, and perhaps in the general case too.
I think that this
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 22:58, Glyph wrote:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Peter Westlake peter.westl...@pobox.com
wrote:
It seems like the shared caching reference would solve this problem
as well?
Yes, I think that's the right answer. It's certainly the right design
in my case, and
On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Peter Westlake peter.westl...@pobox.com wrote:
The main question left in my mind is about the degree of dependency
between the checker and the realm if extra information is passed,
by whatever method. If the realm expects the checker to pass it
(for instance) an
Am 14.01.2013 um 23:58 schrieb Glyph gl...@twistedmatrix.com:
It seems like the shared caching reference would solve this problem
as well?
Yes, I think that's the right answer. It's certainly the right design
in my case, and perhaps in the general case too.
I think that this is the
10 matches
Mail list logo
