On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:14:56AM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:42:19AM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
Is this a good way to do it or is there a smarter way? All comments and advice are welcome.
It looks OK.
Good!
I wonder why a dpi is deemed necessary for this.
I don't know whether it is necessary. That's why I asked for comments. I just thought that HTTP authentication looked rather "cookie-ish" and decided to copy and modify the cookies implementation. I'm new to this part of Dillo so I am following established practice. I already have a dummy auth dpi running and hooked into the main Dillo program, so I think that the dpi part of things is by far the easiest bit. The most work is actually implementing authentication!
Isn't an implementation of a_Dialog_user_passwd() enough to solve it?
It certainly appears to be the missing link, in the sense that everything else that authentication needs is the kind of thing that the cookies dpi already does and therefore counts as a solved problem already. I plan to continue with the dpi-based implementation on the grounds that the biggest part of the task is implementing authentication and a_Dialog_user_passwd(), and that code will not depend on whether we do authentication in the dillo main program or a dpi. If we decide to move authentication out of the dpi and into dillo itself then I will just move the authentication code around and delete some dpi wrapper code, which won't be much work. At least that's how I expect it will work. Stay tuned, and please comment further. Jeremy Henty