-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/#review7855
-----------------------------------------------------------


Great Job! Thanks for doing this. Just few more comments.


/README
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/#comment17185>

    Great! Thanks for adding the explanation. Can you maybe also add 
explanation on how to acquire the CA?



/src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/AuthenticationServlet.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/#comment17190>

    I think it would be better to put the code from the "else" block into a 
separate method with proper name and javadoc.



/src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/AuthenticationServlet.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/#comment17188>

    Can we extract these 3 lines into a separate method with descriptive name? 
we can put the comments into the method javadoc.
    



/src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/AuthenticationServlet.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/#comment17187>

    WaveIdentifiers.isValidIdentifier(email) == true
    ->
    WaveIdentifiers.isValidIdentifier(email)
    No need to test the equality here.



/src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/AuthenticationServlet.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/#comment17191>

    Same here, IMO the code in the "else" block should be refactored into its 
own method.



/src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/util/RegistrationUtil.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/#comment17186>

    Please add the default constructor and make it private to prevent 
instanciation.


- Yuri


On 2012-05-05 17:13:23, Ali Lown wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2012-05-05 17:13:23)
> 
> 
> Review request for wave, Michael MacFadden, Yuri Zelikov, and vjrj.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Adds ability to login with X.509 client certificates instead of a username 
> and password.
> Relies on the wave userid being the same as the username of the email for the 
> domain listed in the certificate.
> 
> Patch adds 3 new config values:
> ENABLE_CLIENTAUTH - fairly explanatory
> CLIENTAUTH_CERT_DOMAIN - required if enabled. Allows the domain the 
> certificate was issued for to differ (e.g. subdomain) from the wave server
> DISABLE_LOGINPAGE - allows password-based authentication to be disabled 
> forcing the use of client certificates only.
> 
> Patch is a compilation between myself and Thomas Leonard 
> ([email protected]).
> The patch is tidied and rebased version of the original patches from the 
> mailing list/github from February.
> 
> Known issue:
> _Sometimes_ it is has been observed that after a session has expired, the 
> login screen is presented without the user being automatically logged in. 
> Entering a username and hitting enter then uses the certificate and the user 
> is logged in. Reproducing this bug locally has been impossible. (Someone else 
> can try to narrow down the cause if they want :) )
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /test/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/AuthenticationServletTest.java 
> 1332795 
>   /src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/util/RegistrationUtil.java PRE-CREATION 
>   /src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/ServerRpcProvider.java 1332795 
>   /src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/UserRegistrationServlet.java 1332795 
>   /src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/gxp/AuthenticationPage.gxp 1332795 
>   /src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/rpc/AuthenticationServlet.java 1332795 
>   /README 1332795 
>   /server-config.xml 1332795 
>   /server.config.example 1332795 
>   /src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/CoreSettings.java 1332795 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4994/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Compiled and run locally without issue.
> Been deployed to my server and client certificates were issued for all users. 
> Has been operating fine since February.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ali
> 
>

Reply via email to