Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:10:23PM -0700, Eric Gillespie wrote:
> > The only answers i've heard so far were basically "sniff the
> > traffic" and "poke around your system package database for sasl
> > modules". This isn't acceptable.
> >=20
>
> So I was the crazy person suggesting those as possible approaches to
> debugging why Eric's SASL-enabled binary just says 'hey, no mechs',
> which might be fine for Eric, but isn't going to fly for users.
Hehe, it would be fine for Eric if he had the time ;->. Since
it's not acceptable for Subversion users, i figured i'd go for
the root of the problem and get someone who does know how this
stuff works to either write some documentation or get me to a
stage where i can write something.
> Part of the problem, of course, is that SASL is designed to be a black
> box - we ask it to authenticate, and it returns 'okay' or 'no mechs' or
> similar. That said, there must be ways to improve the user experience.
>
> For example, could we get a list of the client mechs and return those to
> the user when we get the 'no mechs' message? How about the server mechs?
What would the user do with that information?
--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 10 23:16:14 2007