Hello people,
>> I think backward compatibility is a good idea. We can make the
>> user/pass inputs for data objects optional (they are required
>> currently), maybe even gray them out in the UI with a checkbox to turn
>> them on, or something like that.
>
>
> This is similar to what I was thinki
thanks for the thoughts Trevor,
On 08/15/2014 09:32 AM, Trevor McKay wrote:
I think backward compatibility is a good idea. We can make the
user/pass inputs for data objects optional (they are required
currently), maybe even gray them out in the UI with a checkbox to turn
them on, or something
Thoughts, rapidfire :)
In short, I think we should plan on backward compat unless some stubborn
technical problem gets in our way
I think backward compatibility is a good idea. We can make the
user/pass inputs for data objects optional (they are required
currently), maybe even gray them out
hello Sahara folks,
I am working to get the revamped spec[1] finalized and I'd like to know the
group's thoughts on the idea of backward compatibility. It is possible to
implement the new authentication method and remain backward compatible, but we
will need to keep the username and password in
