And then to actually do callApi?
customPipe.call({})

On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed it will be less intrusive to do as suggested by Seb.
> using something like:
> pipe.call({…})
>
> Well, I was more thinking using our actual API, for i.e
>
> var customPipe = AeroGear.Pipeline([{
>
>     name
> : "customPipe",
>
>     settings
> : {
>
>        authenticator: thing
>
>
> }
> }]).pipes[0];
>
> Still on callAPi section where do we pass the access token? in the settings section?
>
> I think that after thing.authenticate() we don't have to worry to pass the token, it's automagically added.
>
> Coud we put the 'service' into settings too?
>
> ++
> Corinne
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >       • user needs to first create an "application/project" to get an api key
> >       • Then they would choose the services/api's then would like there application to access
> >       • other google server related items....
> > Client Side
> >
> >       • Create a new OAuth2 module thing
> >       • Get access token for the services would need to specify the services they would like to access
> >       • validate the token
> >       • 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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