Even, At the very least, the new file duplicates storage of credentials that may already be stored in cloud-specific credentials files, and creates a new way for users to expose their secrets. Also, cloud providers and organizations have moved or are moving to focusing on short-lived credentials, SSO, etc. How useful is a cross-cloud credentials file if it supports only static credentials? Why not support named profiles already defined in cloud-specific files? Python and C++ programmers haven't needed this framework because they can maintain their own maps of credentials or roles to resources, so I guess this feature is mainly for command line users? Do command line users do this kind of thing enough to warrant a new framework?
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:45 AM Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> wrote: > Sean, > > I saw them as business-as-usual enhancements not impacting the software in > fundamental ways. I'm not sure what I would put in a RFC that is not in > their commit message. Maybe I don't understand what your concern is. > > Even > Le 24/03/2022 à 15:28, Sean Gillies a écrit : > > Hi all, > > The intent and scope of the features developed in > https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/5463 and > https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/5390 seem rather big and unclear to > me. This seems to me to warrant an RFC. Yes? No? > > -- Sean Gillies
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev