Re: [twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-29 Thread Abraham Williams
@andy: oauth/authenticate is not signed other then with SSL. You are just passing the request token to Twitter. @aaron: authenticate and authorize both result in access tokens that allow you to act on behalf of the user. The first time a user goes through authenticate they authorize the applicatio

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-29 Thread Aaron Rankin
Does authenticate actually "authorize" the app to perform operations on behalf of the user? My understanding is the user must first "authorize" the app and then the app can send them through "authenticate" in the future as a login check. If the user never approves the app in an "authorize" operatio

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-29 Thread Andy Freeman
> Nice =>https://twitter.com/oauth/authenticate?force_login=true?{signed > args} this stuff is working very well for me;) Thank you for your > hint. While that "works", I think that it shouldn't. (1) I don't think that it's a legal url because it has two '?'s. (2) force_login=true isn't part of t

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-28 Thread el moro
Nice => https://twitter.com/oauth/authenticate?force_login=true?{signed args} this stuff is working very well for me;) Thank you for your hint. Axel On 29 Dez., 03:21, Andy Freeman wrote: > > The difference (to my understanding) is that Authenticate does not > > authorize the app. > > Huh? > > W

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-28 Thread Andy Freeman
> The difference (to my understanding) is that Authenticate does not > authorize the app. Huh? Whether I use authorize or authenticate, my app can tweet etc on the user's behalf. What, exactly, do you think that authenticate and authorize do? I think that both can give my application a token th

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-28 Thread Justyn
The difference (to my understanding) is that Authenticate does not authorize the app. We need to have the app authorized but want to give the user the chance to choose which account to login with (and Authorize). Ideally, twitter state would not be effected, and user could authorize an app with de

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-28 Thread Abraham Williams
That is true. Authenticate currently leaves the user logged in. I would prefer that get fixed rather then adding force_login to authorize as I view leaving users logged in as a security risk. Apparently Twitter does not: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/detail?id=1070 On Mon, Dec 28,

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-28 Thread Andy Freeman
Then use authenticate. It accomplishes the same effect of authorize. Does it? My notes say that authenticate leaves the user logged into twitter if they weren't before and that authorize doesn't. For my purposes, I'd like to force the user to specify their twitter account and password even if

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-28 Thread Andy Freeman
> Then use authenticate. It accomplishes the same effect of authorize. Does it? My notes say that authenticate leaves the user logged into twitter if they weren't before and that authorize doesn't. For my purposes, I'd like to force the user to specify their twitter account and password even if

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-27 Thread Abraham Williams
Then use authenticate. It accomplishes the same effect of authorize. On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 17:42, Justyn wrote: > Thanks Abraham - I understand this is the current limitation, however > I think there is a need for the foce_login to be available with the > authorize function. The authorize land

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-27 Thread Justyn
Thanks Abraham - I understand this is the current limitation, however I think there is a need for the foce_login to be available with the authorize function. The authorize landing page is confusing to users who want to sign-in with an account that is different from their latest session. The "sign-o

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-27 Thread Abraham Williams
force_login=true only works on https://twitter.com/oauth/authenticate not on https://twitter.com/oauth/authorize. On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 23:23, el moro wrote: > Hi, i'd like to use force_login too in my new Rails application. This > parameter seems to be buggy. For me it' s not working too. > >

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-27 Thread el moro
Hi, i'd like to use force_login too in my new Rails application. This parameter seems to be buggy. For me it' s not working too. On 24 Dez., 05:18, Justyn wrote: > Hi guys - just wanted to make sure this stayed on the radar. I imagine > others would like to use force_login for the Authorize func

[twitter-dev] Re: oAuth Authenticate vs. Authorize (force_login)

2009-12-23 Thread Justyn
Hi guys - just wanted to make sure this stayed on the radar. I imagine others would like to use force_login for the Authorize function? On Dec 22, 4:46 pm, Justyn wrote: > We've found it necessary to use the force_login method for Authorize > because of the confusion many users have with the spla