[isf-wifidog] Re : Re: WifiDog v2 development update?

[wlanmac]

I believe many people here consider the project mostly the portal, with
the gateway as the means to an end. Those who didn't like the portal
architecture (for whatever reason) probably already did something
different (or hacked up the existing project beyond upgrade). In doing
so, I imagine there have been a variety of tweaks done to the "WD
protocol" along the way. To keep the gateway a project in-of-itself,
this "protocol" should be specified outside the scope of the portal, and
should be actively maintained by the project. Yet, last I heard about
"v2", this protocol started moving in the wrong direction with reusable
tokens - which defeated a fundamental security feature of WiFiDog v1
(since the token isn't projected). Defining the features required at the
gateway and working out the protocol would be step #1, imho. Then those
with portals can adjust their implementation of the protocol
appropriately. 

David

On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 16:07 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jean-Philippe Menil wrote:
> > Can someone explain to me, what are the difference between a
> > Drupal or Pylon or the actual auth server infrastructure?
> > It's something about performance, more friendly interface, easier 
> > maintenance?
> 
> I needed a portal which was a lot simpler than the standard wifidog
> portal and had a few special requirements. It was much easier for me to
> write a small pylons app than modifying the wifidog PHP portal. In
> addition my code is fully unit tested, which gives me more confidence
> about its stability and security.
> 
> Wichert.
>