Thanks for the pointer... I did some searches, but they were all
focused on mobile clients.

In my case, I'm not worried about the complexity of implementing
OAuth. I can deal with that, and once it's done, it's gone from the
picture. It's the user experience that worries me, as exposed on that
thread by the TTYtter example.

"Well, since people are asking, the workflow doesn't significantly
differ
from other OAuth applications and depends on the fact that access
tokens
don't expire. When people start TTYtter up for the first time without
an
access token (or TTYtter tries the access token and it fails), it asks
for
the usual request token, prints the access URL with the request token
it
wants the user to authorize, and waits for the user to authorize.
Twitter,
presumably, will say, "ok, tell your program to continue." Back on
TTYtter's
side, the user hits ENTER, and TTYtter exchanges its request token for
an
access token *and caches it* once it has verified it can successfully
hit
the user timeline for data. So far, this is not significantly
different than
any other OAuth app. "

Is there any other way to do OAuth and at the same time, behave like a
sensible application?

Could Twitter implement a basic auth api call to perform the oauth
authorization in the first place? Such a call would only be allowed
from clients that prove they need it, and could be revoked for rogue
clients. I know this lowers the security of OAuth, but it only
officializes a hack many apps will try to implement.


On Jun 19, 12:39 am, Cameron Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Or is the door for basic auth really closing forever?
>
> This has been discussed in a number of threads and an exact determination
> has not yet been made. However, this might give you some context:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------ personal:http://www.cameronkaiser.com/--
>   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems *www.floodgap.com* [email protected]
> -- The cost of living has not adversely affected its popularity. 
> --------------

Reply via email to