It would be really cool if you could create an API key _and_ specify which method calls that API key was allowed access to. I imagine a sort of checkbox mechanism when you create your API keys, so the form fields become:
- allowed domain
- application title
- permitted methods (checkbox for each available method)
B)
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #7 | 20090107_services_key_method_access_patch.png | 14.32 KB | pieterdc |
| #4 | 20090107_services6.x-0.13_key_method_access.patch | 5.04 KB | pieterdc |
Comments
Comment #1
greg.harveyActually, should be applied to dev, I guess.
Comment #2
marcingy commentedSounds good. We have revamped the API handling and this extension would help enhance flexibility. In addition Application title needs to be removed as it provides no function.
Comment #3
pieterdc@greg.harvey: yes, I'd like this too. I might provide a patch for it, as commented on this duplicate issue #312934: Configure services access per API key
Ps: I wouldn't like this proposed patch of #222268: Security: Different user permissions per Service method because it can't be used to define method access rights for anonymous users that use different API keys. That's why I support your idea ;-)
@marcingy: 'application title' provides no functionality to security or authorization, but it can be useful as extra information, such as 'contact information' could be useful - for admin purposes. But we might opt for a more flexible solution such as CCK integration. But as this is off-topic for this issue, I created a new one: #348462: Use CCK for API key's extra information
Comment #4
pieterdcPatched against version 6.x-0.13
Happy reviewing
Comment #5
pieterdcAs 6.x-0.13 (currently) is the latest version (everyone can download without having to use CVS)
And also because my patch (see above) only works with that version.
Comment #6
greg.harveyThanks! I return to work 13th Jan - will try and get chance to check it out that week. =)
Comment #7
pieterdcA little screenshot to make it more visual.
Comment #8
marcingy commentedComment #9
marcingy commented