Good-bye HipChat, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

Good-bye HipChat, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

It was interesting to see this week that Atlassian doomed the future of HipChat and its successor, Stride, with an aggressive wrap up schedule, with the services set to be discontinued on February 15, 2019. At Built to Roam, as a consulting company, we use a number of messaging tools including Messenger, Skype, Skype for Business / Microsoft Teams, Slack, HipChat and a few others. The upshot is that none of these tools do a great job of even their primary function (i.e. chat conversation between two or more parties), as I’ve posted about previously.

As a couple of posts have indicated, the messaging market has become over populated – for a while it felt like I was installing a new messaging app every second day. When Teams first came to the market, there was a lot of criticism aimed at it because it was a primitive offering in comparison to both Slack and HipChat but it’s rapid growth has started to put pressure on other players in the market. I think a rationalisation of the market was due, and I’m not sorry to see the back of HipChat. As one of the older products in the market, it never quite understood the need for users to belong to multiple organisations and to be able to switch between them.

There are some posts that are talking up the closure of HipChat/Stride as an attempt by Slack and Atlassian to team up in the fight against Microsoft Teams. So the question is, will this make a difference? Will it slow the growth of Microsoft Teams? Will it help Slack win over the corporate space?

Recently, Microsoft Teams announced a free tier, which was one of the things that held a lot of smaller companies and teams from using Microsoft Teams. This move in itself has weakened Slack’s position in the market. However, the true hook for Microsoft Teams and in my opinion the sole reason for its wide adoption (because let’s be honest, it’s far from being a great product!), is that it allows users to sign in using their Office 365 / Microsoft 365 account. In other words, if your company has made, or is moving, to Office 365, you can use your existing credentials to sign into Microsoft Teams. And of course, once you do, you can see and communicate with all the other users in your organisation. Can do you do this with Slack? The short answer is no. The long answer is yes but you need to do a bunch of stuff, including pay a ton of money for stuff that should be out of the box (seriously like what the?

The ridiculous thing is that integration into Azure Active Directory (i.e. use Office 365 and Microsoft 365 credentials) is pretty straight forward. Is there something that Slack can do to get the jump on Microsoft Teams? Yes, provide out of the box support to sign in using either G-Suite or Office 365 credentials. In the future there will be two types of organisation, those that use Office 365, and those that don’t. Most of those in the latter group will probably use some form of G-Suite, so providing out of the box support for G-Suite should be on the radar of any enterprise software.

I know this post has gone on a bit but my last point is that I wish services would stop charging a premium for improving the security of their service. Integration with Azure Active Directory and G-Suite should be include in the cheapest tier of any offering. Why would you compromise the security of your service and the data of your users by not providing this.

App or not to App

App or not to App

Following my last post there were a couple of interesting tweets that made me revisit (again) the discussion of whether building an app is the right thing to do. For example, @GeoffreyHuntley said:

Decision time:
– #0 Don’t make an app unless you absolutely have to.
– #1 React + React Native (insane productivity)
– #2 Xamarin (stagnating tbh)
– #3 Flutter (innovator – watch this space)

To be blunt, options 1-3 are all semi-painful – I’m not going to go into detail as to why, as that’s not the point of this post but needless to say that each one has their pros and cons, and none are what you’d consider an ideal development experience. Option 0 sounds like a great option and with the rapid development of Progressive Web Applications (with service workers being included by both React and Angular) it really does seem that not having to build an app is the way to go.

Ok, but in that case, when would we build an application? Before we answer this, I think it’s worth revising what the notion of an “application” or “app” actually means. If you do a search for “App” on Wikipedia you get a number of responses:

  • Mobile app, software designed to run on smartphones and other mobile devices
  • Application software that causes a computer to perform tasks for computer users
  • Web application or web app, software designed to run inside a web browser

(And particular note that the term “website” is not included here as according to Wikipedia a website is “a collection of related web pages” – personal opinion: if you still building for the web using the traditional post-back model (yes, looking at you ASP.NET) you’re building a website, not an app).

Let’s ignore for the moment the distinction between mobile, web or any other qualifier about the type of an application or the target platform and instead, let’s focus on what an application is. According to Wikipedia an Application is software that causes a computer to perform tasks for a user. This is a pretty wide definition and essentially encompasses most software, whether it be a command line application, browser or window based application. However, if you were to ask most people what they thought an “App” was today, they’d probably give an answer that relates to installing an application from the Apple, Google or Windows Store – it seems like the notion of an App is in somehow attached to the distribution model.

If we look further into this, there are a variety of distribution models:

– An application that you simply download from the Internet and just run (it might download as a Zip file but the important distinction here is that there’s no installation process and no Store managing the application). This is by far the simplest distribution model. However, these days few applications are distributed this way as most operating systems distrust downloaded files from the Internet and will refuse to run them without them being “unblocked” first.

– An application you download from the Internet and then install. For Windows and MacOS historically this was the most common way for applications to be distributed. The operating system didn’t have a built in distribution mechanism, such as a Store, but they did support a model for applications to be installed and uninstalled. The danger of this model, is that, similar to just downloading and running an application, an application that is installed could have wide-reaching access to the host operating system. Over time this model has be adapted and additional security (for example User Account Control on Windows) limited what an installed application could do

– An application you install from a Store. Whilst this model did exist prior to the iPhone, it wasn’t really until the App Store launched that the notion of a single curated Store became mainstream. Now, most platforms have a Store where you can browse, search and install apps to suit your every need. Depending on the platform, the process for submitting, certifying and publishing applications varies, with different levels of quality and policy controls imposed in order to try to maintain a high quality bar for apps. The Store also takes on responsibility for distributing updates to application as they become available, as well as providing a mechanism for developers to charge for their applications.

– An application you load in the browser. Most people don’t really consider websites that they navigate to in the browser as applications. However, websites are becoming highly functional and most no longer require a full post-back in order to load more content, improving the usability. In fact, browsers have tried to prompt web sites as pseudo-apps by allowing users to add a web site to a list of applications (for example the “Apps” icon that appears within Chrome under the address bar).


– An application you install via the browser. In contrast to adding a website to a list of applications within the browser, installing a website via the browser allows the website to take advantage of a lot of the benefits of applications installed via a Store. They can appear as an icon on the home screen (or list of applications installed on the device); they run without the browser chrome; they can receive push notifications and much more.

So the question is whether the distribution model is what defines what an “App” is?

When we embark on building an application do we need to lock ourselves into one of these distribution models, or can we pick multiple, or all of these distribution models. Or, is the distribution model different for each platform? To answer this we really need to consider the pros and cons of each mechanism and the corresponding audience reach it gives us, and whether it makes sense to choose a particular distribution model.

Useful OAuth, OpenID Connect, Azure Active Directory and Google Authentication Links

Useful OAuth, OpenID Connect, Azure Active Directory and Google Authentication Links

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been assisting with the development work of an enterprise system that uses both Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) and Google to authenticate users. It’s a cross platform solution which means we need code that works across both authentication platforms, and the three mobile platforms. Unfortunately this is easier said than done – The Azure AD team have done a reasonable job with the ADAL library but it’s not like we can repurpose that library for authenticating against Google. This is a tad annoying since both Azure AD and Google both use OAuth and OpenID Connect, so you’d expect there to be a good library that would work across both.

In trying to find a workable solution I can across a number of links that I want to bookmark here for future reference:

OAuth 2

Home –

The OAuth home page is a good starting point if you want to get more links and information about OAuth (1 and 2) but I actually found it’s main use for me was to point at the OAuth 2.0 Framework RFC

OAuth 2.0 Framework RFC –

You can think of the OAuth 2.0 Framework RFC as being the specification for OAuth 2.0. There are some extensions and other standards that relate to OAuth 2.0 but this is a must read if you want to understand what OAuth 2.0 is all about. You may need to refer back to this when reading other blogs/tutorials as it can help clarify what each of the roles and responsibilities are in the process.

Simple overview of OAuth 2 –

This overview provides a quick summary of the various flows for OAuth 2.0. However, I disagree with the use of the implicit workflow for mobile applications. Whilst mobile applications are not “trusted,” which would normally imply the use of the implicit workflow, the reality is that the implicit workflow can’t issue refresh tokens. This means that unless you want your users to have to log in each time they use your mobile application, you need to use the Authorization Code workflow (the client secret shouldn’t be required when requesting access tokens for mobile apps – this depends on which authentication provider you’re using).


OpenID Connect

Home –

The OpenID Connect home page is again a good starting point as it links to the many different parts of the OpenID Connect standard. OpenID Connect builds on top of OAuth 2.0 in order to provide a mechanism for users to be authenticated as well as authorized for resource access. In addition to the creation of access tokens, OpenID Connect defines an id_token which can be issued in absence of any resource that is just used to identify the user that has authenticated.

OpenID Connect Core 1.0 –

This is the core specification of OpenID Connect. Similar to the specification for OAuth, this is worth both a read and to be used as a reference when working with OpenID Connect implementations.

OpenID Connect Session Management 1.0 –

Whilst still in draft this standard covers how implementers are supposed to handle log out scenarios, which is useful as your application can’t simply delete it’s access tokens when a user opts to log out. Ideally when a user logs out, you’d want to make sure both cached tokens are cleared, along with invalidating any access or refresh tokens.



OAuth 2.0 Overview –

OpenID Connect –

Google’s documentation isn’t too bad but does require you to read all of the pages as the OAuth and OpenID Connect implementation details seem to be scattered across the pages. The assumption is that for any given type of application you can simply read the one page – unfortunately, if you want to get an understanding of the Google implementation, you really need to read everything. Authenticating/authorizing with Google is significantly simpler than with Azure AD as there is no notion of linking your application registration with specific permissions to other applications registered with Azure AD. This is a significant limitation of using Google sign in, as you can really only use it to authenticate and then use the token to access various Google APIs.


Azure Active Directory

Azure AD Developer’s Guide –

Authentication Scenarios for Azure AD –

Azure AD is a much longer read, and it’s very easy to get lost in the world of application configuration and settings. My recommendation is to start with something simple, and then grow from that. For examples, start by authenticating a use to sign into your mobile app, then extend it so that you can use the access token to connect to a Web API, and then on to retrieve information from other Microsoft services within the Web API, and then perhaps make it all multi-tenanted (that’s one for another post!).