- From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@exch1.indy.tce.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:16:36 -0500
- To: "'Jon Radoff'" <jradoff@novalink.com>, "'-=jack=-'" <jack@twaxx.twaxx.com>
- Cc: "'Ron Daniel, Jr.'" <rdaniel@lanl.gov>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
>> 1. Define an API which would exist in a shared-library type space on >> the server (or a DLL on NT). >> >> 2. Applications that wanted to be able to verify if a user has a >> certain permission would make API calls to do so and respond >> accordingly. >> >> 3. The shared-library containing API calls would be able to connect >> to compliant modules defined by the system administrator (e.g., >> if vendor X wanted to provide a module that makes them >> compatible with the API, they'd ship this as a component -- not >> unlike how ODBC works in the database world...) >------------------------- > >This is pretty nice, that's a good approach, IMHO, and ODBC has >been a fairly successful endeavor, so that also bodes well. Just for reference, there are other successes along this line: 1) Microsoft Exchange support both native Exchange Server and Microsoft Mail postoffices (that made _my_ migration easy!). 2) The Perl DBI database interface modules work nicely, I'm told. Undoubtedly others can think of many more... ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "ViaCrypt? Vhy not!"
Received on Friday, 2 May 1997 11:17:53 UTC