World: r3wp

: ) We have not published that source, but I'm cool with it being 
published.  It is not fully tested yet, in fact it will be tested 
very soon.  You have to pound on Edgar to get him to post the source.

LDAP? Holly cow! :-)

Yes, Qtask Enterprise is designed to be dropped right into a server 
farm and start working.  We are working on WebDAV soon as well.

Just wanting to see how much work it would be to authenicate to an 
LDAP in an application

So it's good to hear that you have developed a REBOL LDAP interface 
for QTask

If there is anyone like myself who just scratched their head and 
said what in the blazes is LDAP? http://raleigh.pm.org/ldap-talk.html
 is a nicely done   page. Of course now I want it!

The softinnov link to the LDAP solution above might be the wrong 
one ... I think you want to look at http://softinnov.org/rebol/ntlm.shtml
instead i.e. how does a rebol script authenticate in the microsoft 
nltm world ... which uses ActiveDirectory.   NTLM has been rebranded 
as Integrated Windows Authentication.   

These links may also be useful 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDAP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTLM


My view is that without easy NTLM support we will be very handicapped 
using rebol scripts ....


If running a REBOL script as CGI under IIS, the user information 
is available in the script after IIS has taken care of the challenge. 
 Such support is not available (AFAIK) in Xitami and many other servers.

The REBOL ML "refused" to accept my contribution twice, is there 
anything wrong with it?

are you still subscribed?

try re-subscribing

Current account flags for 'lmecir@...' on 'rebol':

	ECHOPOST

yet it bounces my posts

tomc is the mailing list man

there was a ML group, but  I don't see it, has it been deleted?

hmm.

Can't see it either.

ladislav, what error does it give you back?

ah, i see the messages went thru. so maybe it was a temporary problem.

aha, so you see the messages?

me too

must be your email playing up again Ladislav .. it did this a couple 
of years ago as I remember

this is different, I got mails like this:

This is the Postfix program at host mail.rebol.net.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

			The Postfix program

hmm, there might be some misconfiguration on your provider's side, 
and hence your mail being regarded a spam for e.g.?

But I can see your messages on ml, so ...

fine, I hope you will post your preferences, then :-)

preferences to what? :-)

well,it is just that sometimes it happens, that mail server can be 
misconfigured, but it is not your case apparently, or my mozilla 
would mark your emails as possible spam ...

everything looks fine here ...

preferences to what? :-)
 - I meant your preferences to the FOUND? subject

found? select reduce [1 none] 1

and

    switch/default 1 reduce [1 none] [2]

(I hope you received that post)

yes, twice :-)

found? select 1 reduce [1 none] .... should be found? select reduce 
[1 none] 1 probably?

I like 'found? as-is, but it is true, that I sometimes thought, that 
it would perform 'find for me too .... found? find series value - 
simply that 'find is redundant here ....

but that is just my non-native english perspective, which came to 
my mind few times, without actually thinking more deeply about consequences 
...

as to found? select ... dunno if it is valid thinking - you are not 
searching the series, altough reading the expression "in english" 
might suggest it - you are performing found? on the result of select 
function call ....

right, Pekr, I mentioned the SELECT issue because it is "at the heart" 
of the SWITCH problem

Using found? select .. can be problem anyway as the selected value 
can be 'none (you found 'none) :-)) I'm not using found? much often 
i prefere none? and not none? (found? is a shortcut anyway)

(sorry I can see pekr founded this issue as well:-)

how about the SWITCH question?

>> to logic! select [a b 0] 'b
== false

aha, that doesn't look good either

This is also problematic

i got that bounce email after my last post today too.

maybe someone subscribed to the list is bouncing? although the error 
message refers to a mail loop.

select reduce [1 none] 1 is the same problem as pick reduce [none] 
1 and so on... the problem with switch can be considered a bug, however 
switch expects a block after the value so this is debatable.

i think, that since we have other ways to check for existence (find 
for select, or length? for pick), the behavior is still acceptable 
because useful in many cases.

of course, Ladislav's /default approach would probably be better.

(but can never solve the switch problem completely, because any value 
used as default could appear in the block  - you have to use find)

right, Gabriele, but SWITCH can be implemented using FIND, which 
would solve this issue