Re: [aerogear-dev] [Android] - Refactoring OAuth2 configuration

On 10 Mar 2015, at 09:20, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: As I already mentioned it, we can move those configurations into social repo. Let me create a JIRA on iOS to decouple oauth2 vs social repo (social being dependant on oauth2). Sth we discussed and agreed upon with abstractj (I can't find the thread though, it might have being during security meeting). I recall that discussion, and since both sides here have valid arguments, let's do that: - authz (on Android) and -oauth2 on iOS/Windows/Cordova implement the raw, API -social: contains some of these convenient configurations, to make users life easier

However I do NOT think that means we need to implement a ton of different social adapters. It's more something for our users convenience and if users want to contribute configurations for different services, that's the way to go. This means we can still focus on a clear/clean/raw OAuth2 impl., while having configurations for some 3rd parties. -Matthias A nice entry point to demo OAuth2 is to use external providers as we did for shoot demo app. Another point i don't understand what so bad into renaming android-authz to android-oauth2? ++ Corinne On 9 March 2015 at 17:58, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On 03/09/2015 12:50 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 03/09/2015 12:15 PM, Erik Jan de Wit wrote: > >> Because Facebook and Google are well known for not making arbitrary changes to public apis and configurations. > >> > >> More importantly as an Open Source project hitching our code to the configuration of a third party proprietary system is terrifyingly bad karma. Push is an exception ONLY because there isn't an equvalent open solution which has the same reach to devices. > > It’s just some configuration, what point does oauth2 have when it doesn’t work with Facebook and Google. > /me looks at the shoot and share demo, and the gdrive demo. > Looks like it does work with FB and Google. Did you have a specific > example in mind? > > The whole point of our libs is to make it easy for developers to do these complex things adding this config makes it super easy. I don’t see: ”Terrifyingly bad karma” a good reason not to do this. > Because it is hitching our open source project to the largess of > proprietary service vendors. If they change THEIR configuration and OUR > libraries break WE look like the bad guys not them for starters. > > That happened with push (Google's documentation, not the APIs) in the past, and may happen again. We reacted pretty quick on that one, which is what matters. If we would not react, we would look bad. If we don't hard code their configuration into the API then when they change it we don't look bad. WIN-WIN > > Perhaps we can add a statement that the code executes against a 3rd party service, that we don't own. That can even happen with differen Keycloak versions. However, usually actual API changes from the big players are usually announced, and it's usually comes with a little bit of time to react. Back to who is responsible for monitoring the changes from these guys? > > > Additionally the only direction this can go is toward scope creep. Once > we have Facebook and Google nothing is stopping (rhetorically) from > adding Facebook, Yahoo, VK, Microsoft, etc. Now we are maintaining 5x > as many configurations as we were before. > > I'd not add more, out of the blue. But if there is demand (from which ever direction), it's time to react on that demand, but not before Fair enough. We have demand from VK already so why not add that on in right now? > > Who is going to monitor those > APIs and make sure they don't break/get deprecated? Do we cut a release > because one auth provider changed their config? > > Of course we don't because that is the responsibility of the app > developer to make sure their configuration for the services they consume > is up to date. It is not and should not be our responsibility. > > I freely admit it is nice and it is convenient but it does not belong in > the project. > > Instead, we don't offer any concrete impls for Google or Facebook? Or use a complicated and generic API, which may work, or not? > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > -- > Summers Pittman > >>Phone:404 941 4698 > >>Java is my crack. > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- Summers Pittman >>Phone: 404 941 4698 >>Java is my crack. _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev