On 11/10/05, Chris Muller chris@funkyobjects.org wrote:
As long as you have the same transparency you have now and the same speed you have now, why wouldn't it be nice to have security?
Err.. transparancy means I can access everything. Where's the security, then?
I have worked hard to make Magma perform reasonable. Rest assured, I'm not about to throw that out the window in the name of mandatory security.
Good :)
A Maui interface to the Nags domain could be built in half the time it took to do the Seaside interface, [...]
Is that a challenge? ;) Anyway, Nags' interface is almost empty, most of the coding time went to developing generic develop-apps-quickly-stuff.
I'm not sure I understand. I think you *need* security in the db. If an attacker gains access to your db files then you become another story like we've been hearing from companies in the US lately, that had their customer personal information compromised in some way..
If an attacker gets access to the db files, you're hosed anyway. And bad security will always happen - I bet that the companies that screwed up had databases with built-in security ;).
I happily ran VW+OmniBase to support a business for years. We were security conscious, if you compartimentalize your network well enough the difference between internet|firewall|webserver|firewall|appserver|firewal|dbserver or internet|firewall|webserver|firewall|appserver+presistence isn't too bad.
Three-tier is fine for corporate / web. IMO two-tier is better for personal / distributed objects.
Agree there.
Summary: at the moment, I'm looking at Magma as a persistence engine below Squeak. And I like it. For *my* purposes, I don't really need security - yet. So I hope that whatever you cook up, doesn't interfere :)
At the same time, I'm interested in where you take this. So I'll shut up for new, lest you start taking my advice...