redirection on authentification

2010-12-07 Thread Benoit Chesneau
Hi all, I'm experimenting problem with the current method used when authentification fail. If you pass worng authentificatino headre you are redirected to an html page asking for credention. So technically we do : 401 - 302 - 200 Which is wrong if we follow the spec. The response MUST include a

Re: redirection on authentification

2010-12-07 Thread Robert Newson
We do this on purpose (to prevent browsers prompting for credentials in a dialog box) but you can include a custom request header to get the WWW-Authenticate response header. If you add a header called X-CouchDB-WWW-Authenticate then the value of that header is returned, verbatim, in

Re: redirection on authentification

2010-12-07 Thread Benoit Chesneau
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.com wrote: We do this on purpose (to prevent browsers prompting for credentials in a dialog box) but you can include a custom request header to get the WWW-Authenticate response header. Yes.. What I said. Introducing wrong HTTP

Need help/feedback implementing validate_doc_get

2010-12-07 Thread Bram Neijt
Dear developers, After going into the theoretical depths[1] of what performance hits there may be and how replication will be affected, I've decided to just implement a simple solution and see how far I can get. I've decided to try to implement a validate_doc_get function, in the same manner as

Re: redirection on authentification

2010-12-07 Thread Filipe David Manana
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: Which is wrong if we follow the spec. The response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field [..] [1] . It also introduce some bugs, try for example to create a database when not logged. The reason we use a 302

Re: redirection on authentification

2010-12-07 Thread Benoit Chesneau
damn. Some typos. Here is better text Hi all, I'm experimenting problem with the current method used when authentication fail. If you pass authentication headers you are redirected to an html page asking for credentials. So technically we do : 401 - 302 - 200 Which is wrong if we follow the

Re: redirection on authentification

2010-12-07 Thread Benoit Chesneau
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Filipe David Manana fdman...@apache.org wrote: I'm not a CouchApps developer, so I'm not completely aware of all the issues involved. Nevertheless, I support your idea. The issue you describe is related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-972 I

[jira] Commented: (COUCHDB-972) Unauthorized requests with(out) Accept: */* get different status codes

2010-12-07 Thread Benoit Chesneau (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-972?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12968720#action_12968720 ] Benoit Chesneau commented on COUCHDB-972: - There is a discussion started today

minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Adam Kocoloski
Hi, the mochiweb we're shipping in 1.1.0 has abandoned support for R12B05, so we should revisit our minimum required Erlang version. Do we have a compelling reason for supporting anything below R13B04? That release introduces support for recursive type specifications, which are useful when

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Paul Davis
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, the mochiweb we're shipping in 1.1.0 has abandoned support for R12B05, so we should revisit our minimum required Erlang version.  Do we have a compelling reason for supporting anything below R13B04?  That release

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Adam Kocoloski
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, the mochiweb we're shipping in 1.1.0 has abandoned support for R12B05, so we should revisit our minimum required Erlang version. Do we have a compelling reason for

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Paul Davis
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote: On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, the mochiweb we're shipping in 1.1.0 has abandoned support for R12B05, so we should revisit

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Paul Davis
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote: On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, the mochiweb

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Robert Newson
+1 for R13B04. On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote: On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote:

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Robert Newson
Not to hijack the thread but the Mochiweb upgrade also makes eunit a build dependency which has caused issues on Debian installs (eunit being a separate and optional package). On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for R13B04. On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Jan Lehnardt
On 8 Dec 2010, at 00:05, Robert Newson wrote: Not to hijack the thread but the Mochiweb upgrade also makes eunit a build dependency which has caused issues on Debian installs (eunit being a separate and optional package). Didn't you propose a patch to mochiweb that makes eunit

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Robert Newson
I did and it was rewritten upstream (https://github.com/mochi/mochiweb/commit/e8156a1c44d054f1f6e9396c828751ed22418d7f). It's after the release we have so we have a few options; 1) Upgrade to a newer version. 2) Backport the patch. 3) Add eunit dependency to autotools. I vote for 3 for 1.1 and

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Paul Davis
I vote for just deleting the eunit bits in our packaged version. Its not like we use them. And I'd rather delete the eunit code rather than grab it as a dependency (and then deal with figuring out what to do when there's an installed version or not or should be but a distro has stripped it out).

Re: minimum required Erlang version

2010-12-07 Thread Robert Newson
righto. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote: I vote for just deleting the eunit bits in our packaged version. Its not like we use them. And I'd rather delete the eunit code rather than grab it as a dependency (and then deal with figuring out what to do

[jira] Commented: (COUCHDB-968) Duplicated IDs in _all_docs

2010-12-07 Thread Adam Kocoloski (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-968?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12969156#action_12969156 ] Adam Kocoloski commented on COUCHDB-968: Rebased the 968 branch on my github on

[jira] Updated: (COUCHDB-968) Duplicated IDs in _all_docs

2010-12-07 Thread Adam Kocoloski (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-968?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Adam Kocoloski updated COUCHDB-968: --- Fix Version/s: 1.1 1.0.2 Duplicated IDs in _all_docs

[jira] Assigned: (COUCHDB-968) Duplicated IDs in _all_docs

2010-12-07 Thread Adam Kocoloski (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-968?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Adam Kocoloski reassigned COUCHDB-968: -- Assignee: Adam Kocoloski Duplicated IDs in _all_docs ---