Monticello authentication methods?

> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>> list<[hidden email]>
>>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>> list<[hidden email]>
>>> CC: Ken Causey <[hidden email]>
>>> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

>From: Todd Blanchard <[hidden email]>
>To: Ken Causey <[hidden email]>
>CC: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
><[hidden email]>,        J J
><[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: [Io] RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication
>methods?)
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:58:51 -0700
>
>Yep, that's pretty much how I see it.  Whoever can get to the work  and
>finish it wins.
>
>I have actually started integrating the SWHttpClient, implementing  all
>existing web stuff on top of it, but I have a ways to go and am  short on
>time now.  I could probably get it done about the first of  the year.
>
>I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of  classes, it
>is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching, and  has
>proxy/auth/cookie support.
>
>On Oct 4, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
>
>>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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>>>list<[hidden email]>
>>>>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>>>list<[hidden email]>
>>>>CC: Ken Causey <[hidden email]>
>>>>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
>>[hidden email]
>>http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
>

> Yep, that's pretty much how I see it.  Whoever can get to the work  
> and finish it wins.
>
> I have actually started integrating the SWHttpClient, implementing  
> all existing web stuff on top of it, but I have a ways to go and am  
> short on time now.  I could probably get it done about the first of  
> the year.
>
> I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of  
> classes, it is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching, and  
> has proxy/auth/cookie support.

> hi todd
> what SW stands for? Steve Warring ?
>
>> Yep, that's pretty much how I see it.  Whoever can get to the work  
>> and finish it wins.
>>
>> I have actually started integrating the SWHttpClient, implementing  
>> all existing web stuff on top of it, but I have a ways to go and  
>> am short on time now.  I could probably get it done about the  
>> first of the year.
>>
>> I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of  
>> classes, it is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching,  
>> and has proxy/auth/cookie support.
>
> Lot of classes is not a desease. :)
> if this is not too much classes
>
> Stef
>
>