-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 169
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
Load balancer and cookie proposal #776
Comments
Hello @Kaczkazniszczenia , I'm open to make this package better, also I'd like to keep it solid, so far that wasn't an issue. To start we need to compare pros and cons using From my point of view I've been helping commercial projects going thought security audit and compliance — using temporary To proceed further, please tell us what are reasons made you to step away from sticky sessions? Note: Upload won't work without sticky sessions, it might, but would eventually fail from client to client. |
Please do not close issue, I should be able to prepare an answer tomorrow. |
Hello @dr-dimitru, sorry for the long response time. Sticky session is not suitable for my system, we have a 'relatively' low number of users, with the possibility of generating a lot of traffic by each of them. Can you please elaborate on the upload topic? Fortunately(or not), I didn't run into this problem. Even though direct use of So it might be a good idea to let users define their own I hope you will like the idea and be willing to discuss it further. |
Hello @Kaczkazniszczenia ,
Hope that help. |
User injection inside the 'protected' function looks like a working solution, ... but I think it could be solved better I would like the library to have a global override of the user authorization method for all file collections in system(_getUser), and the cookie management would be handled entirely outside the library. |
You can use it in server hooks where |
I don't see any hook allowing me to skip these issues. Can you point me in right direction ? |
added PR. |
Related #778 |
@dr-dimitru can I ask for your opinions on the proposed changes ? I am happy to answer any questions to speed up the entire process. |
@Kaczkazniszczenia I usually give time up to two-three weeks on all PRs and critical changes (especially related to security) at this repository. Meanwhile I advise to you to use it as much as possible to find and eliminate possible bugs and issues. I'll be back once thoroughly tested on our end. |
@dr-dimitru below I am sending custom auth class wrapper that I am currently using. I hope it helps.
|
Any new updates ? |
@Kaczkazniszczenia merged. Testing pending |
v2.0.1 __New:__ - ✨ `config.disableSetTokenCookie` see #776 and #778 for details, thanks to @Kaczkazniszczenia __Changed:__ - 👨💻 Abort http-fetch requests when calling `.abort()`; - 👨💻 Make sure no other/delayed requests/responses executed;
Closed due to silence at issue owner end. |
I would like to suggest changing the content of the cookies x_mtok to 'LoginToken' stored in local storage. Alternatively, make this change optional by selecting flags in the global configuration for the package (not sure if there is any).
Using session key stored in the DB would make it easier to recognize the user. If you allow cookie parameters to be defined in the global configuration, it is also possible to separate the file server from the rest.
Of course, if the change gains the interest and consent of the owners of the package, I will be happy to deliver the change.
My reasons for change:
The package doesn't work since my application uses multiple servers + load balancer. Because of reasons I won't use sticky sessions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: