41 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
41 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
summary: We should mandate that /publicRooms requires an access_token
|
|
---
|
|
created: 2016-01-08 01:38:41.0
|
|
creator: neb
|
|
description: |-
|
|
Submitted by @matthew:matrix.org
|
|
Such that people who want to ACL the directory depending on who's viewing it can do so
|
|
id: '12285'
|
|
key: SPEC-321
|
|
number: '321'
|
|
priority: '3'
|
|
project: '10001'
|
|
reporter: neb
|
|
status: '10100'
|
|
type: '1'
|
|
updated: 2016-10-28 16:28:08.0
|
|
votes: '0'
|
|
watches: '3'
|
|
workflowId: '12390'
|
|
---
|
|
actions:
|
|
- author: dbkr
|
|
body: |-
|
|
Do we make this an option, or do we just do it everywhere?
|
|
I can see the value of keeping a public room list you can get without an access token, maybe rooms that are neither peekable or joinable by guests don't appear unless you give an access token? I think I'd prefer to have separate endpoints because getting a partial roomlist if your access token has expired sounds like the way madness lies. I think I would rather have endpoints that either work all the time or only when you have a valid login.
|
|
created: 2016-01-26 17:00:02.0
|
|
id: '12585'
|
|
issue: '12285'
|
|
type: comment
|
|
updateauthor: dbkr
|
|
updated: 2016-01-26 17:00:02.0
|
|
- author: richvdh
|
|
body: 'Migrated to github: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/612'
|
|
created: 2016-10-28 16:28:08.0
|
|
id: '13420'
|
|
issue: '12285'
|
|
type: comment
|
|
updateauthor: richvdh
|
|
updated: 2016-10-28 16:28:08.0
|