On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hi Leonard, > > Leonard Richardson [2009-01-12 12:39 -0500]: > > > So, is this possibly but just not obvious, or is it intended that > > > there be no anonymous access? > > > > It's intended that there be no anonymous access. The web service doesn't > > have some common use cases of the website (eg. search engine crawlers > > or people coming in from lists of search results) and we want to be able > > to throttle usage for people who are doing too much expensive stuff > > through the web service. > > This is bothering me as well, and prevents me from effectively using > launchpadlib in e. g. apport. Hmmm. Why? Doesn't the user need an account to submit bugs anyway? > Given that python-launchpad-bugs is much slower and puts much more > load on the server, and that one could work around this by creating a > bogus user on Launchpad and hardcode its username/password in the > software, I don't think the "no anonymous user" design can be either > effectively enforced nor makes sense. Just two comments: p-l-b doesn't necessarily put more load on the server. It depends on what it's doing -- fetching +text is actually cheaper than pulling in bug data via the API. If a username/password was hardcoded and the software caused problems, we could definitely throttle or disable that user. Having said that, I am not philosophically opposed to allowing read-only access to anonymous users, having said that (via Launchpad.View for instance). Leonard, is there any non-technical reason why we shouldn't do it, or alternatively, is there a strong technical one? -- Christian Robottom Reis | [+55 16] 3376 0125 | http://launchpad.net/~kiko | [+55 16] 9112 6430 | http://async.com.br/~kiko
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)