New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Translate URL based user/password to basic auth in HTTPClient #481

Closed
s-ludwig opened this Issue Jan 27, 2014 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@s-ludwig
Member

s-ludwig commented Jan 27, 2014

When requesting URLs like http://user:password@example.org/, the HTTP client currently ignores the user:password part. Instead, it should automatically add a basic-auth header to the request.

See also http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.vibed/thread/10030/

nazriel added a commit to nazriel/vibe.d that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2014

nazriel added a commit to nazriel/vibe.d that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2014

@nazriel nazriel referenced this issue Feb 6, 2014

Merged

Fix issue #481 #501

nazriel added a commit to nazriel/vibe.d that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2014

s-ludwig added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 7, 2014

@nazriel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nazriel

nazriel Feb 13, 2014

Contributor

@s-ludwig should we close it now?
Or are you planing to keep it open in order to find workaround for cycle dependencie error?

Contributor

nazriel commented Feb 13, 2014

@s-ludwig should we close it now?
Or are you planing to keep it open in order to find workaround for cycle dependencie error?

@s-ludwig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@s-ludwig

s-ludwig Feb 13, 2014

Member

The latter. I'll try to take a closer look in the coming days.

Member

s-ludwig commented Feb 13, 2014

The latter. I'll try to take a closer look in the coming days.

@s-ludwig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@s-ludwig

s-ludwig Feb 25, 2014

Member

Okay, since the code is so simple, the cyclic references actually seem to be a slightly worse issue in this case, even if the static constructor cycle would be fixed. I'm going to leave it like this for now.

Member

s-ludwig commented Feb 25, 2014

Okay, since the code is so simple, the cyclic references actually seem to be a slightly worse issue in this case, even if the static constructor cycle would be fixed. I'm going to leave it like this for now.

@s-ludwig s-ludwig closed this Feb 25, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment