Hi,

That sounds good !

Just one question, instead of using the callApi function couldn't we pass the oauth module (called 'thing' in your example) to the pipe directly, using the 'authenticator' setting. Behind the scene, the pipe manager will append the oauth token to the query or add the bearer header ?

Seb

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com> wrote:

OAuth2 AeroGear Workflow - High Level

Using Google api's

Server Side

1. user needs to first create an "application/project" to get an api key
2. Then they would choose the services/api's then would like there application to access
3. other google server related items....

Client Side

1. Create a new OAuth2 module thing
2. Get access token for the services would need to specify the services they would like to access
3. validate the token
4. make calls to the service

API

var thing = AerGear.OAuth2({
                name: googleEndPoints, //Just a Name
                clientID: "12345" //The client ID of the app from the API console
                settings: {
                    permissions: "..",
                    ...
                }
            }).somecoolmodulename.googleEndPoints;

Settings: Multiple settings based on paramters here

Methods

authenticate

this will authenticate with the server to get the access token and then validate the token, once that is all good then the response is returned.

thing.authenticate({
    success:{},
    error:{},
    settings: {
        //probably some settings here, like URL overides and such
    }
});

callApi

not really a good name, but it would basically call the remote api/services. we could either do a query string option or a Head option

example:

curl 'https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v1/userinfo?access_token=1/fFBGRNJru1FQd44AzqT3Zg'

or

curl -H "Authorization: Bearer {accessToken}" https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v1/userinfo

code:

thing.callApi({
    service: "userinfo", //don't really like this name either
    success:{},
    error:{},
    settings: {
        ... //overridable baseURLs?
    }
});

revoke

again, maybe not the best name. calls the "revoke" service, to remove access to permissions

thing.revoke({
    success: {},
    error: {},
    settings: {}
});

Behind the scenes on all these calls, the "access_token" is beining used and possibly refreshed for the user, so they don't have to worry about it. They just need to call authenticate first. Maybe we can have a refresh method if the user wants to refresh the tokens themselves. this would do the token "dance"

On Aug 26, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org> wrote:

+1 I think is a good start to us.

Kris Borchers wrote:

I would like to see that but what you are saying makes sense. It sounds like where I was headed with the Basic and Digest adapters before I ran into browser security issues with headers. I think and authorization API that basically just wraps itself around secured endpoints works for me.

--
abstractj

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev