Behavior Nightmare

[Josh Mellicker]

On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:

> It would seem using behaviors is more secure than temporarily removing
> security from a stack.


Is there a higher risk to setting the passkey of a protected stack? What is it?





On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:

> Recently, Josh Mellicker wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
>> 
>>> The reason for all the jumping through hoops here is password protection: I
>>> need to be able to dynamically add and remove groups from the main stack,
>>> and this can't happen if the stack is password protected.
>> 
>> Doesn't setting the passkey of the stack allow you to add, delete, copy
>> groups, etc.?
> 
> One of the main benefits of behaviors, from the docs:
> 
> "The button containing the behavior script can be located anywhere. In
> particular this allows for it be located in a password protected stack,
> allowing you to protect the script without need to protect the controls
> using it."
> 
> It would seem using behaviors is more secure than temporarily removing
> security from a stack.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott Rossi
> Creative Director
> Tactile Media, UX Design
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution