Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABvT1DFxOK=bJ8YJGJRq-jiY3ZMYgD21KfwwK6mqRSDHDkkppQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALp38EM8oUraQ3dP3QVynSOJwgK1wnGXJdYcMcHsNGywGe5i_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABvT1DFxOK=bJ8YJGJRq-jiY3ZMYgD21KfwwK6mqRSDHDkkppQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:03:37 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9rzUzj6bMQkBQZLGswQPn=AXPgRz7ri45KdypJungk3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Request object in validate_doc_update
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
> I can't think of a solid objection to this idea. The result of a
> validate_doc_update can already vary based on the local security
> object. Being able to inspect not only the new document, but any other
> property of the request seems useful.
>

Imo any security things should be distinct from authorization. So
someone can also athenticate itself wh

We could eventually add some extra data like proposed in my previous
mail, but rather I think having a role given to a user depending on
its IP would work better. And most of systems are working like this
today anyway.

- benoit