Cannot access Rev-Online (was RAD Challenge)

Roger.E.Eller at Roger.E.Eller at
Mon Jan 24 14:10:56 EST 2005

Richard and Kevin and Xavier,

Even though we are not in the medical industry, many of our products are 
used in medical and pharmaceutical applications. Internet security is a 
very high priority for us. We may be the only customer of Runtime who has 
this requirement. It is not a developer design issue because we must 
authenticate for any internet URL via any out of the box browser (Internet 
Explorer, Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, etc.). I have proven that it CAN work 
for our firewall conditions if the USER:PASS@ is simply passed along in 
the URL. How difficult would it be to add that as a preference item. If it 
is empty, put empty into it's variable, else populate it and everything 
works for me, for my colleagues, and also for everyone else who may work 
in a less restricted environment.

I do this for all the apps that I create and they work fine inside or 
outside the firewall. A few of the folks on this list have adopted this 
behavior in their software projects (like RevZilla and Scripters 
Scrapbook), and those apps work great for me as well as for everyone else. 
I asked them NOT to do this just for little ole' me, and they responded 
that if it is happening to one person, it is likely there will be others. 
So the choice was to include about 5 pro-active lines of code to insure 

My purchase of Revolution was for work. I simply want to use all of it's 
functionality while at work, and Rev-Online could be crucial in training 
new developers which in turn could increase Runtime's sales of their 
product. If we, the users can make it work, why can't/shouldn't it be 
integrated into the IDE? The recipe for it's success has already been 

Roger Eller <roger.e.eller at>

>>As major corporations tighten their internet security, RunRev needs to
>>support all authentication methods. As it stands, the learning center is
>>not accessible for me even though we have paid for it with the 
>>license fee. I have reported this to Bugzilla many many months ago
>>(bug#1962 - opened on 8/10/2004). I have heard nothing since. Do I also
>>need to contact support at even though it is in bugzilla?
> I agree that supporting the widest variety of security mechanisms is
> useful, but if a network requires the addition of "<login>:<password>"
> to a URL that seems more of a developer design issue than an engine
> ehancement.  Or more specifically, I'm not sure how an engine
> enhancement would address that.
> FWIW, I've been working on a system used by more than 20 doctors in a
> wide variety of hospitals, and while hospital IT folks are generally
> among the most concerned about security our app is working successfully
> in all of them.
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Media Corporation

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list