Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.python > #22252

Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation

Path csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Subject Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Organization http://groups.google.com
Lines 37
Message-ID <23005482.975.1332870880211.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcr5> (permalink)
References <1973354.3.1332816158529.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbae2> <87haxahh51.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <roy-E4EA5A.23301726032012@news.panix.com> <878vimhfdp.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <roy-2E9CB1.23571326032012@news.panix.com> <87zkb2fz7g.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <7909491.0.1332826232743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbim5> <roy-261DBC.10182627032012@news.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host 159.153.138.55
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding quoted-printable
X-Trace posting.google.com 1332871264 31631 127.0.0.1 (27 Mar 2012 18:01:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:01:04 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To <roy-261DBC.10182627032012@news.panix.com>
Complaints-To groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=159.153.138.55; posting-account=US_9zQoAAABOtpKbrs9cDfYpbT6eMPnL
User-Agent G2/1.0
X-Received-Bytes 3102
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.python:22252

Show key headers only | View raw


On Tuesday, 27 March 2012 07:18:26 UTC-7, Roy Smith  wrote:
> In article 
> <7909491.0.1332826232743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbim5>,
>  Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > OAuth 2.0 is still in draft status (draft 25 is the current one I believe) 
> > and yes, unfortunately every single server available at this point have 
> > varying degrees of separation from the actual spec. It's not a 
> > pseudo-standard, it's just not observed to the letter. Google is the closest 
> > and Facebook seems to be the farthest away (Stack Exchange is in close second 
> > due to building theirs to work like Facebook's).
> 
> In practice, OAuth is all about getting your site to work with Facebook.  
> That is all most web sites care about today because that's where the 
> money is.  The fact that other sites also use OAuth is of mostly 
> academic interest at this point.
> 
> The next player on the list is Twitter, and they're not even up to using 
> their own incompatible version of OAuth 2.0.  They're still using OAuth 
> 1.0 (although, I understand, they're marching towards 2.0).

Sure, with the initial surge of the Facebook platform, I'm sure there are many more applications that only work with Facebook. However, after the initial gold rush, I'm sure there will be more developers who see the potential power of service aggregation (and not just for feeds ;)). I know I'm one of them.

Of course, a lot of these thoughts are around niche markets, but isn't that where the money is? Untapped, niche markets? That's a completely different discussion though and would obviously be quite the thread derailment.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 19:42 -0700
  Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-27 14:11 +1100
    Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-03-26 23:30 -0400
      Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-27 14:49 +1100
        Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-03-26 23:57 -0400
          Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-27 15:24 +1100
            Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Jack Diederich <jackdied@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 01:24 -0400
            Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 22:30 -0700
              Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-03-27 10:18 -0400
                Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 10:54 -0700
                Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Mark Hammond <skippy.hammond@gmail.com> - 2012-03-28 14:42 +1100
    Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Stuart Bishop <stuart@stuartbishop.net> - 2012-03-27 16:59 +0700
    Socket Error : Address still in use  (Conveting from python 1.5.2 to 2.7.1) Wong Wah Meng-R32813 <r32813@freescale.com> - 2012-03-27 09:41 +0000
    Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Roland Hedberg <roland@catalogix.se> - 2012-03-27 15:36 +0200
  Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-07-05 07:06 -0700
    Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-07-06 01:19 +1000
      Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-07-05 10:48 -0700
      Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-07-05 10:48 -0700
        Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-07-06 08:38 -0700
        Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-07-06 08:38 -0700
          Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-07-07 04:41 +1000
          RE: OAuth 2.0 implementation "Demian Brecht" <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2012-07-06 11:49 -0700
          Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-07-07 04:58 +1000

csiph-web