Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 david@goodlad.ca)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e282921e1001170115y262ce625rc92d44eadb21b093@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e282921e1001170115y262ce625rc92d44eadb21b093@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Goodlad <david@goodlad.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:24:57 +1100
Message-ID: <594289661001170124m2e9d8198w9109a9314c056873@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: auth polishing
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org> wrote:
> I've also normalized some naming, like user docs to name/password
> instead of "username" in some places.

Nice!

> The /_session response now returns something like:
>
> {
> =A0userCtx : {
> =A0 =A0name : "jchris@apache.org",
> =A0 =A0roles : ["_admin", "_replicator", "author"]
> =A0},
> =A0info : {
> =A0 =A0authentication_db : "_users",
> =A0 =A0authenticated : ["cookie"],
> =A0 =A0authentication_handlers : ["oauth", "cookie", "http_basic"]
> =A0},
> }
>
> I flirted with the idea of including the userDoc but I'll leave that
> up to someone else to tackle.

Including the userDoc is only really useful if convention is going to
allow devs to add whatever fields they'd like to user docs as far as I
can tell...

> TODO:
>
> * bcrypt (I think there are some JS implementations out there)
> * security object (I think this will be a local doc that apps can
> populate with the help of an admin.)

+1 for the security object, as we discussed on IRC the other day. I'd
be happy to see something as simple as the following:

Validation functions would take a new argument, 'security'. If in the
database that the validation function is running for there exists a
document with id '_security', that document would be passed as that
new argument. The document could have whatever structure a dev felt
was appropriate, as long as it has the correct id. If there was no
document, an empty object (or null?) would be passed.

What is the plan for 'read' permissions, if any? I need to be able to
grant users read permission on one database but not another...

I appreciate the great work so far Chris!

Dave