Connection caching?

[Darren Tucker]

Ben Lindstrom wrote:
> Which is fine, but some around here have expressed a need for ordered
> authentication.  Which would make a bitmask implementation imposible
> without predefining all possible forms of combination.

The client decides which order to try the authentications anyway, unless 
the server is going to spoon-feed it with changing "authentications that 
can continue" lists.  I don't see what value there is in enforcing a 
specific order, though.

 > I'm sure one could argue that moving from a bitmask to character array
 > where you number 1,2,3,4,5..etc..  for the ordering.  However, I'm
 > still thinking that could become too much. <shrug>  One would have to
 > implement it both ways to see how much added complexity.

The same syntax can be used for both, the ordering could be implemented 
later if necessary.

-- 
Darren Tucker (dtucker at zip.com.au)
GPG key 8FF4FA69 / D9A3 86E9 7EEE AF4B B2D4  37C9 C982 80C7 8FF4 FA69
     Good judgement comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.