[news.eclipse.technology.etf] Re: Comments on ETF proposal

["Jeff McAffer" <jeff_nospam_mcaffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 all around.

Jeff

"Ed Burnette" <ed.burnette@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ct9m15$iv5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> First, a trivial observation then something more substantial.
>
> First, I'd like to encourage new projects like yours to pick more
meaningful
> names if at all possible rather than three letter acronyms. Especially
> acronyms with redundant letters like E for Eclipse and F for Framework.
For
> example, how about "trust" or "identity" or "social"? Put another way, a
few
> months down the road when we have ETF, ECF, EDF, EHF, EJF, and so on,
nobody
> is going to know what is what and we'll run out of letters, or start using
P
> (platform) or other variations to make it even more confusing.
>
> Next, I've read the proposal and the newsgroup to date. Mostly I'm looking
> for something that allows single sign-on, integrates with platform
> authentication mechanisms. For example, if I'm on Windows there should be
no
> need for me to log in to an application with a userid/password since I
> already did that. Let's say there's a "Clipsezilla" browser that looks
like
> Firefox except it's written with Eclipse. The browser should be able to
use
> NTLM authentication to talk to intranet web sites like Firefox can do.
Also
> important is impersonation. With the proper setup, an RCP app should be
able
> to temporarily behave like a certain person (file access, database
> connectivity, etc.) with all the rights and privleges that person has.
>
> The proposal and supporting material at socialphysics.org seems to put the
> most emphasis on things like contacts, buddy lists, ratings,
collaboration,
> buddy lists, and social networks. While this is interesting, it doesn't
seem
> to have a lot of usefulness for the kind of boring business apps I write.
> Perhaps these social framework aspects should be in one project (i.e.,
this
> one) and the more pedantic issues like security, authorization,
> authentication, username, password, keyring, login screen, platform
> integration, and so forth that are common to so many apps should be in
> another (say, what's currently called the Equinox Security "work area").
The
> social framework would be built on top of the communications framework and
> the security framework. Does that make sense?
>
> -- 
> Ed Burnette
> www.eclipsepowered.org
>
>