http://weblogs.asp.net/lorenh/archive/2004/02/24/79218.aspx
1.
Udi Dahan – The Software Simplist
said: Saw it at a local .Net user
group some time ago. Seemed nice,
except for the interop.One other thing is the ability to
perform “business tasks” that are
really only script.Should the interop go away,and be
able to call .Net code for business
tasks,this would truly be a killer.
2.
Chris Bilson said: We have it fully
integrated into our ASP.NET
application. The Interop part really
sucks when you have defined alot of
operations and are doing lots of
authorization checks. It’s a real
performance killer.I have my own wrapper class that
invokes my “Business Tasks” when an
access check is performed.I feel kind of frustrated that there
isn’t more information about this
tool,as I agree that it is nice way
to get out of hard coding role checks
into my application – something that
would not be acceptable in my case due
to varying customer defintions of what
a “Manager” is and what they can do.
3.
Dominick Baier said: hi,
i love azman! i have written some
stuff on it on www.leastprivilege.com
– especially that ability to use non-windows accounts is very cool!dominick
4.
Mathertel said: Yes,we use it in a
.NET Web Application,built a wrapper
and a bunch of additional tools to
work with (a lot of tools are missing
in the MMC snapin)
5.
Tom Bruns said: I have used AzMan
extensively in a large .NET Web
application. I think that the
conceptual model is very good.
However,there is alot of “lessons
learned” concerning how to correctly
architect the application to use it
relative to performance,ongoing
maintaince of the policy store,
interaction with ADAM etc. If I can be
of any help please feel free to email
me. Replace nospam with com in my
email address. Used correctly it can
perform very well.
6.
Horea Hopartean said: We tried to
use it and keep its repository on a
Win2003 AD,but at 10000 users it took
13 (thirteen) seconds to do an
OpenApplication call.That and the ugly API may be good
reasons why it hasn’t got any traction
so far
