Re: Apache authentication efficiency -- WEB400

Subject: Re: Apache authentication efficiency
From: Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:13:07 -0700
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/web400/>
List-help: <mailto:web400-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: "Web Enabling the IBM i \(AS/400 and iSeries\)" <web400.lists.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:web400@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:49 PM Justin Taylor <JUSTIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hmm... I can't believe I'm the only one concerned about this. Of course,
there is your commercial solution and may be others.

I was concerned enough about it that I built an interface that resolved
that issue in addition to several other concerns. For example, what if a
need arises to temporarily make an application unavailable but still
respond appropriately when that occurs? What if you want a session to
expire after a period of inactivity?

The idea of activating a persistent process for every user is NOT common.
IBM i supports interfaces like that better than any other platform due to a
unique architectural foundation. Most platforms are comparably limited on
the number of processes that they can support.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.