<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bogdan@opensips.org">bogdan@opensips.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Also, we may want to have two global urls:</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- one r/w for modules that require writing to the db;<br>
- one r/o for modules that require only reading from db.<br>
</blockquote></div>
Does it make sense to keep this separation between RW and RO ? personally I never used it...somehow is non-sense (as security) for a single application to connect in the same time, to the same DB with RW and RO (for different modules).....my 2 cents..</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I personally don't see the benefit to having a RW and RO account. I can potentially see good use for a RO for the opensipsctl script, but even there, limited use. </div><div><br></div><div>I think the intention was really more like:</div>
<div>1. opensips daemon gets RW, it can do anything</div><div>2. opensipsctl script may be ran manually by an unprivileged user and we don't want them to necessarily have full RW access to the db.</div><div><br></div>
<div>I'm not sure the security belongs here.. if that makes any sense..</div><div>-Brett</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div>