Uses authenticated access to Launchpad when anonymous will do

It would also make it harder to tell that it is udd doing things,
which is quite nice for us. Please consider at a minimum setting a
custom user agent if you start using anonymous access. However,
ideally, I'd say keep using authenticated access.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Robert Collins
<email address hidden> wrote:
> It would also make it harder to tell that it is udd doing things,
> which is quite nice for us. Please consider at a minimum setting a
> custom user agent if you start using anonymous access. However,
> ideally, I'd say keep using authenticated access.
>

In the API at least, anonymous access still requires specifying the
app name. Also, there's more than one udd instance out there doing
things unrelated to udd.

jml

> Also, there's more than one udd instance out there doing
> things unrelated to udd.

So, you're saying you want the lp:udd codebase so support using an anonymous token, so that the not-UDD binary symbols thing can use it, whilst actually-UDD remains as it currently is?

udd sets a user-agent string (or should), and obviously comes from a
particular IP address. That ought to give lp a pretty good idea who
it is.

--
Martin

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Max Bowsher <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Also, there's more than one udd instance out there doing
>> things unrelated to udd.
>
> So, you're saying you want the lp:udd codebase so support using an
> anonymous token, so that the not-UDD binary symbols thing can use it,
> whilst actually-UDD remains as it currently is?

Not really, just saying that the code in lp:udd can & is being used by
others, but they aren't using the same user as udd is. Thus the point
about tracking is specific to one particular deployment.

jml

Well, my point is that it is better for *LP* if such things are logged
in, it lets us contact folk causing headaches. Yes, there is an 'app'
field, but that is not the same as a user id. I repeat: I would prefer
if all the instances out there running this code where logging in.

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Robert Collins
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Well, my point is that it is better for *LP* if such things are logged
> in, it lets us contact folk causing headaches. Yes, there is an 'app'
> field, but that is not the same as a user id. I repeat: I would prefer
> if all the instances out there running this code where logging in.

How is it different?

jml

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Lange <email address hidden> wrote:
> How is it different?

Huh? You've completely lost me; they aren't the same at all..