« Return to Thread: RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
by Ken Causey
::
Rate this Message:
http://map.squeak.org/packagebyname/HTTPClient
I'll let Todd comment on the status since if anyone is looking into this
at the current time, it is him. His original comment that this package
was the default choice was a mistake since in fact we (the I/O team) had
never gotten so far as to make any such decision. At the current time I
would say that anyone that cares to take the time to put together a
solid test suite for any of the available choices (assuming they don't
already have one) and do the work to at least enable the ability to plug
it in to the rest of the Squeak HTTP-using architecture will warrant a
high degree of attention and support from the I/O team.
Ken
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:32 +0000, J J wrote:
> So does anyone know the status of this? What is Steve Waring's http
> package? Is it a true replacement for the HTTP system? Is it all pure
> squeak?
>
> Thanks,
> JJ
>
> >From: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...>
> >Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<squeak-dev@...>
> >To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<squeak-dev@...>
> >CC: Ken Causey <ken@...>
> >Subject: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
> >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:23:29 -0700
> >
> >I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in favor
> >of the Steve Waring's http client package.
> >
> >Right Ken?
> >
> >-Todd Blanchard
> >
> >On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
> >
> >>So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> >>Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble improve...No
> >>giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >>
> >>>>Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because MC will
> >>>>send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
> >>>>digest
> >>>>is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely reworked.
> >>>
> >>>Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just awful.
> >>>
> >>>Philippe
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
I'll let Todd comment on the status since if anyone is looking into this
at the current time, it is him. His original comment that this package
was the default choice was a mistake since in fact we (the I/O team) had
never gotten so far as to make any such decision. At the current time I
would say that anyone that cares to take the time to put together a
solid test suite for any of the available choices (assuming they don't
already have one) and do the work to at least enable the ability to plug
it in to the rest of the Squeak HTTP-using architecture will warrant a
high degree of attention and support from the I/O team.
Ken
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:32 +0000, J J wrote:
> So does anyone know the status of this? What is Steve Waring's http
> package? Is it a true replacement for the HTTP system? Is it all pure
> squeak?
>
> Thanks,
> JJ
>
> >From: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...>
> >Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<squeak-dev@...>
> >To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<squeak-dev@...>
> >CC: Ken Causey <ken@...>
> >Subject: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
> >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:23:29 -0700
> >
> >I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in favor
> >of the Steve Waring's http client package.
> >
> >Right Ken?
> >
> >-Todd Blanchard
> >
> >On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
> >
> >>So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> >>Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble improve...No
> >>giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >>
> >>>>Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because MC will
> >>>>send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
> >>>>digest
> >>>>is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely reworked.
> >>>
> >>>Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just awful.
> >>>
> >>>Philippe
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
signature.asc (196 bytes) « Return to Thread: RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |