From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 6:29 PM
[...]
I guess I'd rather see the saving correlated with the provider.
Imagine this scenario:
1) User backing store #1 (file)
2) User backing store #2 (dbm)
3) Keyboard
Say we find a match in provider #2 (all the ones in provider 1 fail).
We authenticate successfully.
Furthermore, let's add the assumption
that we're fairly advanced and we have a procedure within the client
to change the user's password. So, we now update the credentials for
this user with a new password.
What would be nice would be to replace the old credentials in the dbm
with the new one. So, if we were to store the originating provider
as a key in the credentials, we could then 'update' the credentials.
Now, you could say that because the user placed the 'file' provider
first that that is their 'preferred' provider. But, I'm not sure
that's exactly what we would want. Is it? -- justin
It is likely that we wish to update creds in the provider we got them
from. We would need to save the provider and the old creds and pass
those optionally to the save function. This should then first
try the passed in provider and see if it can update the old creds.
If not, it should start at the first provider and cycle through them
until it finds one that wishes to store the new creds (or it doesn't
find one ofcourse).
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 14 02:14:27 2006