couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <>
Subject Re: couchdb & oauth
Date Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:55:28 GMT
On Oct 18, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jan Lehnardt <> wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2009, at 11:11, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> In which version of couchdb is oauth planned to be stable (db auth +
>>> replication) ? At this point i'm not sure it's usable in 0.10 or  
>>> if it
>>> will be in 0.10.1 or 0.11 ? Any info about it ? If it's 0.10.1 would
>>> it be possible to have devs in sync in a 0.10.1 ?
>> Can you point out what's not usable? OAuth & replication should
>> work. Jason, Adam and the Canonical folks have been hammering
>> out some issues with proxies, but I think all necessary patches for
>> us went into trunk & the 0.10 branch (Jason, Adam, please correct
>> me if I'm wrong here :)
> well that's why I'm asking, I'm not sure what is usable or not. I saw
> lot of discussions/patches on irc and not all related to db auth. some
> related to headers vs qs, other related to replication. So I really
> don't know :) Maybe indeed Jason or Adam could  tel what is the status
> aboutitin 0.10.

Caveat: I haven't built any "real" system myself that relies on OAuth,  
I've only helped out with the Canonical deployment.  But as far as I  
know, trunk and the 0.10.x _branch_ fully support OAuth.  The 0.10.0  
_release_ has a bug that breaks pull replication from an OAuth- 
protected server, but otherwise it works. (More precisely, if you're  
running 0.10.0 and you replicate from an OAuth-protected server of any  
version, it will break.  The bug affects the replicator's HTTP client,  
not the server).

OAuth requests with query-string parameters seem to be a tricky issue  
in general.  I believe a recent version of the Python OAuth library  
had a bug that would cause it to generate bad Authorization headers  
when query-strings params were used.  I think the latest version of  
that library has fixed that bug.

I'm not sure what you mean by "would it be possible to have devs in  
sync in a 0.10.1?"  Coiuld you elaborate?  Best,


View raw message