> > The only common denominator that could possibly cover all contingencies would
> > be LDAP authentication.  One way of doing this in a more-or-less universal
> > fashion is to offload the auth task from eLog itself and place the burden on
> > Apache.  This means figuring out how to get Apache to pass auth info to eLog
> > when eLog operates behind Apache.  In the end, anything that can use LDAP as an
> > authentication mechanism (like AD) can host eLog - as long as eLog can glom off
> > of Apache's ability to do the actual authenticating.  
> 
> That sounds to me like a great idea. If anybody gets this working, people would be
> grateful if this could be submitted to the "Contributions" section of this forum.

Ah, you test me!  Perhaps I will attempt to dig into this but I may have to leave the
integration up to you, Stefan.  Seems that there would be two roads to go:
1> Move away from standalone and start to rely on Apache
2> Continue with the standalone theme and build in LDAP authentication (which could
also give you groups functions as well). 

I think I would opt for <2>

> Ah, you test me!  Perhaps I will attempt to dig into this but I may have to leave the
> integration up to you, Stefan.  Seems that there would be two roads to go:
> 1> Move away from standalone and start to rely on Apache
> 2> Continue with the standalone theme and build in LDAP authentication (which could
> also give you groups functions as well). 
> 
> I think I would opt for <2>

<1> would only make sense if the functionality could be completely implemented inside
Apache, without (much) modification of elog. Otherwise I agree that <2> would be more
following the general lines of elog. I was considering to implement PAM (pluggable
authorization module) support into elog, which is quite easy to implement and gives you
to power of having LDAP, Kerberos, Unix username, Windows NT Domain and much more. But
that would them be restricted to elog running under Linux (and Solaris I guess), since
I'm not aware of a PAM implementation under Windows.

Implementing LDAP directly into elog gives me the problem that we don't use LDAP
authentication at our institute (it's Kerberos in fact). So I would have to set up my own
LDAP server for testing, plus we at our institute don't have a direct benefit from that,
which would make it hard for me to justify to spend time on.

> > Ah, you test me!  Perhaps I will attempt to dig into this but I may have to leave the
> > integration up to you, Stefan.  Seems that there would be two roads to go:
> > 1> Move away from standalone and start to rely on Apache
> > 2> Continue with the standalone theme and build in LDAP authentication (which could
> > also give you groups functions as well). 
> > 
> > I think I would opt for <2>
> 
> <1> would only make sense if the functionality could be completely implemented inside
> Apache, without (much) modification of elog. Otherwise I agree that <2> would be more
> following the general lines of elog. I was considering to implement PAM (pluggable
> authorization module) support into elog, which is quite easy to implement and gives you
> to power of having LDAP, Kerberos, Unix username, Windows NT Domain and much more. But
> that would them be restricted to elog running under Linux (and Solaris I guess), since
> I'm not aware of a PAM implementation under Windows.
> 
> Implementing LDAP directly into elog gives me the problem that we don't use LDAP
> authentication at our institute (it's Kerberos in fact). So I would have to set up my own
> LDAP server for testing, plus we at our institute don't have a direct benefit from that,
> which would make it hard for me to justify to spend time on.


Yes, PAM is highly dependent upon Unix and PAM would work under Solaris just fine.  Your
problem lies with Windows - hence my LDAP suggestion.

And LDAP isn't an easy thing to setup, but I bet there is a quick and dirty "test" bench that
could be rigged using OpenLDAP.  Like I indicated, I'll see what I can dig up on this front -
but I make no promises wrt delivery time!

Options Version = 1,2,3

{1} Options Version = 1,2,3

{1} options Version = 4.3, 5.1 , 5.2 ,5.3

{1} Options Version = 4.3, 5.1 , 5.2 ,5.3

Find -> Export to: CSV (or any other format) -> Search

You can just copy-and-paste an elog entry into Word. I tested it here wiht a simple table:

Did a copy-and-paste to Word, and got the thing below.

Best,
Stefan

Thanks a lot Stefan,

I asked if it is possible, in general, to create a connection and automatically fill in the tables of a report, or export the data into excell tables to then be connected to the report, having in our case about 24 process tables to be filled in with data or validation, for each report. If the compilation is not automatic, after having compiled the elog in each phase of the processing, the manifacturing report will then have to be compiled manually.

We use elog, having already used it in MEG We must then compulsorily also make manufacturing  and test reports. The expected space-type documentation format for these documents is in word.

Below is a small example of a test table, with just a few steps.

Thanks again

Manuela