Disable V1 auth support in remoting client and Me2Me host.

Disable V1 auth support in remoting client and Me2Me host.

BUG=110483
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=139815

[Sergey Ulanov, 2012-05-30 18:52:05]

This is a subset of http://codereview.chromium.org/10453064/ that doesn't break
current version of It2Me client with newer host. With that change It2Me host
will be the only place left that still supports V1 authentication.

[Wez, 2012-05-31 00:50:49]

On 2012/05/30 18:52:05, sergeyu wrote:
> This is a subset of http://codereview.chromium.org/10453064/ that doesn't
break
> current version of It2Me client with newer host. With that change It2Me host
> will be the only place left that still supports V1 authentication.

So we'll only use V1 authentication in IT2Me hosts, with older clients?  In that
case, could you remove the V1ClientAuthenticator implementation here?

[Wez, 2012-05-31 00:51:07]

On 2012/05/31 00:50:49, Wez wrote:
> On 2012/05/30 18:52:05, sergeyu wrote:
> > This is a subset of http://codereview.chromium.org/10453064/ that doesn't
> break
> > current version of It2Me client with newer host. With that change It2Me host
> > will be the only place left that still supports V1 authentication.
> 
> So we'll only use V1 authentication in IT2Me hosts, with older clients?  In
that
> case, could you remove the V1ClientAuthenticator implementation here?

LGTM with V1ClientAuthenticator removed. :)

[Sergey Ulanov, 2012-05-31 01:17:53]

On 2012/05/31 00:50:49, Wez wrote:
> On 2012/05/30 18:52:05, sergeyu wrote:
> > This is a subset of http://codereview.chromium.org/10453064/ that doesn't
> break
> > current version of It2Me client with newer host. With that change It2Me host
> > will be the only place left that still supports V1 authentication.
> 
> So we'll only use V1 authentication in IT2Me hosts, with older clients?  In
that
> case, could you remove the V1ClientAuthenticator implementation here?

The unittest for the V1HostAuthenticator still needs the client part, and I
think we should keep the unittest for now.

[Wez, 2012-05-31 01:20:10]

On 2012/05/31 01:17:53, sergeyu wrote:
> On 2012/05/31 00:50:49, Wez wrote:
> > On 2012/05/30 18:52:05, sergeyu wrote:
> > > This is a subset of http://codereview.chromium.org/10453064/ that doesn't
> > break
> > > current version of It2Me client with newer host. With that change It2Me
host
> > > will be the only place left that still supports V1 authentication.
> > 
> > So we'll only use V1 authentication in IT2Me hosts, with older clients?  In
> that
> > case, could you remove the V1ClientAuthenticator implementation here?
> 
> The unittest for the V1HostAuthenticator still needs the client part, and I
> think we should keep the unittest for now.

Good point - LGTM as-is. :)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-05-31 01:25:54]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sergeyu@chromium.org/10446084/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-05-31 04:45:19]

Failed to apply patch for
remoting/client/plugin/chromoting_scriptable_object.cc:
While running patch -p1 --forward --force;
patching file remoting/client/plugin/chromoting_scriptable_object.cc
Hunk #1 FAILED at 390.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
remoting/client/plugin/chromoting_scriptable_object.cc.rej

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-05-31 08:13:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sergeyu@chromium.org/10446084/9002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-05-31 10:08:52]

Try job failure for 10446084-9002 (retry) on win_rel for step "compile" (clobber
build).
It's a second try, previously, step "compile" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[JennCook, 2017-08-24 23:36:49]

On 2012/05/31 00:50:49, Wez wrote:
> On 2012/05/30 18:52:05, sergeyu wrote:
> > This is a subset of http://codereview.chromium.org/10453064/ that doesn't
> break
> > current version of It2Me client with newer host. With that change It2Me host
> > will be the only place left that still supports V1 authentication.
> 
> So we'll only use V1 authentication in IT2Me hosts, with older clients?  In
that
> case, could you remove the V1ClientAuthenticator implementation here?

This is the actual owner of the androids, Linux fucia, I think is what jigs
called now, was raspberry I think, I know my entire account is supports be on
hold, no one messing with anything including router and network. It hasn't
stopped. I don't know what I did to deserve this error icing attack, but it's
gone too far. Please stop changing things. I need to reinstall chrome and don't
know how.   Jenn cook