There was a discussion recently about OAuth, and I just saw this blog
posthttp://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2013/03/oauth-great-way-to-cripple-your-api.html
(posted
on
slashdothttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/22/1439235/a-truckload-of-oauth-issues-that-would-make-any-author-quit)
with some
Most of those concerns are valid. Daniel Friesnen has managed to convince
me that OAuth is absolutely horrible, and that we will probably have to
make our own authentication framework.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
Hoi,
MAY I QUOTE YOU ???
Thanks,
GerardM
On 22 March 2013 17:11, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of those concerns are valid. Daniel Friesnen has managed to convince
me that OAuth is absolutely horrible, and that we will probably have to
make our own authentication
I think the caricature of OAuth there should be taken with a grain of
salt. The author talks about OAuth, but seems to be referring to
OAuth 2 primarily, which is very different from OAuth 1. Also, the
author says that the protocol was designed for authorizing
website-to-website communication, but
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Yuri Astrakhan
yastrak...@wikimedia.org wrote:
There was a discussion recently about OAuth, and I just saw this blog
posthttp://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2013/03/oauth-great-way-to-cripple-your-api.html
(posted
on
Oh yay, I actually convinced someone.
This post is a little different than mine. A random spattering of
high-level qualms with it. OAuth 2 not being a protocol. Flow issues
(though a little debatable). And some stuff about enterprise that
besides being irrelevant to us sounds like berating
On 03/22/2013 12:48 PM, Chris Steipp wrote:
I think the caricature of OAuth there should be taken with a grain of
salt. The author talks about OAuth, but seems to be referring to
OAuth 2 primarily, which is very different from OAuth 1. Also, the
author says that the protocol was designed for
