On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
> It would seem using behaviors is more secure than temporarily removing
> security from a stack.
Is there a higher risk to setting the passkey of a protected stack? What is it?
On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
> Recently, Josh Mellicker wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
>>
>>> The reason for all the jumping through hoops here is password protection: I
>>> need to be able to dynamically add and remove groups from the main stack,
>>> and this can't happen if the stack is password protected.
>>
>> Doesn't setting the passkey of the stack allow you to add, delete, copy
>> groups, etc.?
>
> One of the main benefits of behaviors, from the docs:
>
> "The button containing the behavior script can be located anywhere. In
> particular this allows for it be located in a password protected stack,
> allowing you to protect the script without need to protect the controls
> using it."
>
> It would seem using behaviors is more secure than temporarily removing
> security from a stack.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Rossi
> Creative Director
> Tactile Media, UX Design
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
