Re: [holger: Re: Logger for libgda]

[Holger Thon <holger gidayu max uni-duisburg de>]

Hi!

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:26:42PM +0100, David Marín Carreño wrote:
> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:26:42 +0100 (CET)
> From: David Marín Carreño <davefx bigfoot com>
> To: Holger Thon <holger gidayu max uni-duisburg de>
> Cc: gnome-db-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: [holger: Re: Logger for libgda]
> In-Reply-To: <20001128210211 B8939 gidayu max uni-duisburg de>
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Holger Thon wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 11:01:54PM -0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you put it in the server, the database will be more secure: nobody
> > > > > > could access to the database without logging (only if you can set the
> > > > > > logger to be activated forever).
> >
> > The provider could be circumvented by a faked provider which is
> > search-path of the environment of the running oafd before the original
> > one. So security is not that a great argument, imho.
> 
> Always (at least in PostgreSQL) we can close all remote connections to the
> database server, only allowing local connections, and using a gda-provider
> locally installed as the only access method to the database.

Hm, well, but only if you just have *nix clients accessing your db server,
or force !(*nix) users to migrate to linux (see below). ;-)

> 
> The log and the logger must live in the server. And there must be only one
> log/logger for all clients.

Is it possible to communicate with a bonobo/oaf component running on a
different machine knowing its oaf id? 
If yes, the provider could be run on the server and all gda clients would
have to be forced to contact the remote provider. So homogenous *nix clients
would not confuse the logger with their transactions. However, inhomogenous
networks (such as a mix with windows clients) would be a problem to the
logger, still (the synchronization problem i mentioned in a mail before).

Ciao,

  Holger