4 ms·
Just because the standards exist doesn't mean everybody follows them. Most and maybe all implementations have some crazy customisation. It makes the standards
by smackeyacky 4y ago
Just because the standards exist doesn't mean everybody follows them. Most and maybe all implementations have some crazy customisation. It makes the standards and docs almost worthless.
- jeroenhd 4y agoBut that's hardly OAuth's fault. I can blame HTTP/2 cleartext because none of the websites I'm trying to access are working in my browser, but it's not reasonable to blame a generic protocol for not providing my niche when it's the implementations that are broken. Imagine complaining to the WHATWG because Microsoft decided to host an IRC server on port 80 and none of my browsers work. In my experience, OAuth works great. Standard libraries Just Work, login Just Works, all you need is a URL (usually standardised) and maybe the configuration the service is expecting (i.e. the names of the permissions you're asking the user for). Usually, that's nothing special to set up. In some cases, particularly with huge "fuck you we're big enough to be the standard" vendors, there are some stupid hardcoded values and workarounds you need to deal with because they couldn't be bothered to use a library or document their flawed implementation. I've set up a Keycloak server and authentication against it is super easy to set up. Copy-paste a domain, two generated tokens, and maybe a URL if .well-known discovery isn't implemented by the client, and that's it. Things can be easy, companies providing "OAuth" support just choose to make your life hard.