You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be helpful to be able to throw away security definitions in each individual source and add new ones for all APIs (whitelist likely, similar to paths.include model). This way if you have a microservice architecture with a common gateway where authN is implemented within that Gateway the merged swagger file which is the union of everything exposed by the Gateway could own the security definitions of all the routes exposed. This would be opposed to exposing or keeping the security definitions which would typically define the protocol between "serviceA", "serviceB" and the "gateway".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Looking at an approach for this. Have something that is quite dirty in approach right now. Want to clean it up a bit will post some details on how I'm envisioning the json to look trying to keep consistency with other features where it makes sense.
It would be helpful to be able to throw away security definitions in each individual source and add new ones for all APIs (whitelist likely, similar to paths.include model). This way if you have a microservice architecture with a common gateway where authN is implemented within that Gateway the merged swagger file which is the union of everything exposed by the Gateway could own the security definitions of all the routes exposed. This would be opposed to exposing or keeping the security definitions which would typically define the protocol between "serviceA", "serviceB" and the "gateway".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: