I thought the things in Fulcrum had been "backported" into Turbine? What did that actually mean?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Quinton McCombs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 11:59 AM > To: Turbine Users List > Subject: RE: Current state of CryptoService? > > > Turbine 2.2 makes no use of Fulcrum. Turbine 2.3 does not use Fulcrum > either. > > I know nothing about the crypto service or the proposals that went > around about that topic. That might be a good question for the > turbine-dev list. > > Given that it does not appear that the current plans for Turbine will > the include use of Fulcrum in the near future, I would > suggest that you > refactor the code from Fulcrum into Turbine 2.3. This should be a > fairly painless process... Then implement your needs for the salting. > > If you need help with this effort, the people on the dev list > should be > willing to help you out. > > Once you are done, you can submit the crypto service for > inclusion into > Turbine 2.3. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lester Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:37 AM > > To: Turbine User Mailing List (E-mail) > > Subject: Current state of CryptoService? > > > > > > I am looking to be able to salt passwords, and checked to see > > if Turbine supports this already. My search led me to a patch > > proposal on the dev list > > (http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=turbine > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > pache.org&msgId=260787) that seemed to do exactly what I > > needed (that is, add a "salt" argument to > > SecurityService.encryptPassword). > > > > Looking at the CVS archive, I see that this Cryptoservice > > proposal was made "part of Fulcrum" in July 02. > > > > Looking at the Fulcrum JavaDocs, however, it appears that the > > parts of the proposal I liked (support of salt in the > > security interface) seem to have been abandoned within > > org.apache.fulcrum.crypto. This service seems to be > > responsible only for generic encryption. Fulcrum also offers > > a SecurityService interface and a BaseSecurityService but > > these seem to be nearly identical to the ones in Turbine 2.2, > > rather than using an encryptPassword method with a salt > > argument (or even the crypto service). > > > > It looks a bit like the original patch proposal was more > > interested in using > > crypt(0) than in salting passwords, so I get the feeling I'm > > projecting my desires onto it. Am I correct in assuming that > > the final version of the CryptoService differed in purpose > > from the original proposal? > > > > I also can't seem to find anything that actually uses > > org.apache.fulcrum.crypto in Turbine 2.2. Did Turbine 2.2 > > ever make use of it? I guess I'm a little unclear as to what > > following the howto for configuration actually does for you. > > I guess this just lets you use the service, but the > > configuration doesn't actually make Turbine use it by > > default. Is that right? > > > > Thanks, > > Wordman > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:turbine-user-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For > > additional commands, > > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<winmail.dat>>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
