[thesite] UEUE v.0.2 Update

[.jeff]

dan,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Daniel J. Cody
>
> > i think there are many reasons why we should make
> > sure that never happens.
>
> care to share them, or to just keep continually
> arguing ?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i don't feel that i'm the one arguing.  i feel that i'm bringing up valid
points and being responded to as if i'm crazy for considering such
solutions.

there are lots of reasons we should make sure that we have some sort of
connection to all sub-sites.  one of the most important is to make sure that
the sub-site isn't being used in a fashion directly in conflict with our
mission in general.  another is to make sure they fall within our charter or
bylaws as an organization, whatever those might be.  basically it comes down
to guaranteeing there are checks and balances in place.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > xml data transfer.  disconnected subsites aren't a
> > problem.
>
> um. this is pretty much what we're doing with ueue.
> 'data transfer' from a DB connected machine to one
> that isn't. i'm confused as to if you're agreeing
> or not.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i don't see anything about data transfer in either of the ueue
infrastructure design documents.  the only thing i see is the setting of a
cookie that contains the very basic of user information.

also, how does ueue address the possibility where an evolt "subsite" was
actually under a different domain?  how would it be able to set cookies for
that domain?

thanks,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/