OK. Thanks! -john On Jun 23, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Andre Merzky wrote:
Great! Than, if you don't mind, I adjust the streams, and move what you wrote as documentation and example to the context, to make sure that that is completely covered there.
Cheers, Andre.
Quoting [John Shalf] (Jun 23 2005):
On Jun 23, 2005, at 8:48 AM, 'Andre Merzky' wrote:
Quoting [Hartmut Kaiser] (Jun 23 2005):
My only concern (a minor concern) is that the underlying security information is actually different than the kind of information that is stored locally. (eg. its going to be a credential rather than a public/private key pair). So the way that we interact with the two kinds of security contexts is compatible (its reasonably represented as a list of key-value pairs), but the underlying object or information may in fact be different.
Sorry for a possibly dumb question: Isn't this reflected in the contextType enum already?
My thought as well - that is at least the intent of the context type thingie. Do you think that is unsufficient?
Sorry, I didn't read the rest of your email. (I'm hastily reading email during a meeting in Atlanta) The context type takes care of everything.
-john
-- +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andre Merzky | phon: +31 - 20 - 598 - 7759 | | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) | fax : +31 - 20 - 598 - 7653 | | Dept. of Computer Science | mail: merzky@cs.vu.nl | | De Boelelaan 1083a | www: http://www.merzky.net | | 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+