3 ms·

Your complaint isn’t about AWS, it’s about the authentication scheme. I find it to be pretty neat, especially when it’s flexible enough to create signed URLs fo

by orf 4y ago

Your complaint isn’t about AWS, it’s about the authentication scheme. I find it to be pretty neat, especially when it’s flexible enough to create signed URLs for any method and send them to third parties. We use that as a basis for service-to-service auth. It’s cool and flexible. But overall this complaint seems pretty shallow. You’d just use the client SDKs they publish, or if you want to really go off the beaten path you could just use the signing methods from those SDKs with your own request/response calls. And if you’re building your own SDK (why?), well there is a lot more complexity down the line once you get past authentication.

omnibrain 4y ago
> And if you’re building your own SDK (why?) There are more languages than C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Kotlin, .NET, Node.js, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rust & Swift.
- orf 4y ago
  Of course there are. And there are also unofficial SDKs for many other languages. But if you’re building a feature to interact with AWS then ignoring the availability of SDKs is stupid. If you want to write your service in brainfuck then go for it, but don’t blame AWS for that decision.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]