Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update docs to explain intended pattern for common code (#58) #78

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 19, 2021

Conversation

davepacheco
Copy link
Collaborator

@davepacheco davepacheco commented Jan 19, 2021

Fixes #58.

@davepacheco davepacheco requested a review from ahl January 19, 2021 18:41
Copy link
Collaborator

@ahl ahl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

typo (I think?) and a very mild suggestion that you should feel free to reject

README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

With Dropshot, we wanted to try something different: if the primary purpose of these handlers is to share code between handlers, what if we rely instead on existing mechanisms -- i.e., function calls. The big risk is that it's easy for someone to accidentally forget some important function call, like the one that authentices or authorizes a user. We haven't gotten far enough in a complex implementation to need this yet, but the plan is to create a pattern of utility functions that return typed values. For example, where in Node.js you might add an early authentication handler that fills in `request.auth`, with Dropshot you'd have an authentication function that _returns_ an `AuthzContext` struct. Then anything that needs authentication consumes the `AuthzContext` as a function argument. As an author of a handler, you know if you've got an `AuthzContext` available and, if not, how to get one (call the utility function). This composes, too: you can have an authorization function that returns an `AuthnContext`, and the utility function that returns one can consume the `AuthzContext`. Then anything that requires authorization can consume just the `AuthnContext`, and you know it's been authenticated and authorized (possibly with details in that structure).

It's early, and we may find we need richer facilities in the framework. But we're hopeful this approach will make it faster and smoother to iterate on complex API servers.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
It's early, and we may find we need richer facilities in the framework. But we're hopeful this approach will make it faster and smoother to iterate on complex API servers.
It's early, and we may find we need richer facilities in the framework. But we're hopeful this approach will make it faster and smoother to iterate on complex API servers. We welcome feedback from folks using or interested in using Dropshot.

Co-authored-by: Adam Leventhal <[email protected]>
@davepacheco davepacheco merged commit c6ed62a into oxidecomputer:master Jan 19, 2021
@davepacheco davepacheco deleted the issue-58 branch January 19, 2021 19:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

update docs to explain intended pattern for common code
2 participants