Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 50288 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2009 15:56:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Oct 2009 15:56:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15410 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2009 15:56:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 15319 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2009 15:56:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 15309 invoked by uid 99); 18 Oct 2009 15:56:33 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:56:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of adam.kocoloski@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.221.179] (HELO mail-qy0-f179.google.com) (209.85.221.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:56:31 +0000 Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so2971798qyk.30 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.13.19 with SMTP id z19mr2126941qaz.242.1255881370258; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.1.9? (c-71-232-49-44.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [71.232.49.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm2786498qyk.7.2009.10.18.08.56.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Subject: Re: couchdb & oauth From: Adam Kocoloski In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:56:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: dev@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) On Oct 18, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Adam Kocoloski =20 > wrote: >> >> Caveat: I haven't built any "real" system myself that relies on =20 >> OAuth, I've >> only helped out with the Canonical deployment. But as far as I =20 >> know, trunk >> and the 0.10.x _branch_ fully support OAuth. The 0.10.0 _release_ =20= >> has a bug >> that breaks pull replication from an OAuth-protected server, but =20 >> otherwise >> it works. (More precisely, if you're running 0.10.0 and you =20 >> replicate from >> an OAuth-protected server of any version, it will break. The bug =20 >> affects >> the replicator's HTTP client, not the server). > > mmm that could be annoying. Is this fixed in trunk ? Yes. I tried to say that above, but maybe I wasn't clear. Sorry =20 about that. >> OAuth requests with query-string parameters seem to be a tricky =20 >> issue in >> general. I believe a recent version of the Python OAuth library =20 >> had a bug >> that would cause it to generate bad Authorization headers when =20 >> query-strings >> params were used. I think the latest version of that library has =20 >> fixed that >> bug. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "would it be possible to have devs in =20= >> sync in >> a 0.10.1?" Coiuld you elaborate? Best, >> > > Was just thinking that if there were fix on 0.10 in trunk, maybe they > could be in 0.10.1 branch. depending if such version will happen or > not of course :) > > > thanks for the answers anyway, it helps > > - beno=EEt Hi Benoit, I think we've got you covered. I'm assuming an 0.10.1 =20 release, if there is one, will be built from the 0.10.x branch, and so =20= I've backported the OAuth replication fix from trunk to 0.10.x. Cheers, Adam=