HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
osohq
oso
Rust2020–2022
osohq / oso · Archived

oso

Legacy Oso open source library (archived)

Libraries & SDKs
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
8Distinct people
9Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
3.5KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Legacy Oso open source library (archived)

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month9 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-10-23 18:42:50 UTC to 2022-11-20 13:38:21 UTC.

01232020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsOct 20202020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsOct 20212021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsNov 2022

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 20202020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Nov 20202020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20202020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
Jan 20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20212021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20212021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20212021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20212021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20212021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20212021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20212021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20212021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Oct 20212021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Nov 20212021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20212021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20222022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20222022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20222022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20222022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20222022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20222022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20222022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20222022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20222022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20222022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

9 sources
noworriesnate·Nov 20, 2022
Not OP but authentication is easy, authorization is a cross-cutting concern that often requires custom code. E.g., there are people and teams, both of which can have different kinds of access to something (read/write). Sometimes teams have sub-teams. Do the sub-teams have access to the parent teams' resources and/or vice versa? Also what kind of sharing are you going to support? Do people have to have an account to view stuff shared to them or can you just send a link? There are some efforts to make custom DSLs for describing authorization policies, to avoid cross-cutting code[1]. Computed fields require different treatment at every level of the stack. This isn't inherently hard, but it is an extra feature these low-code/no-code platforms need. Where things get difficult is in migrations. It's common for a field that is computed at the be
Read the rest
ginning to become customizable, or for the computation to change. When that happens, what should the value be for old columns? Computed fields also often pull data from multiple other tables, which may require some combination of custom queries and database optimization. [1] https://github.com/osohq/oso
In Show HN: Illa – An open-source alternative to Retool
gkaemmer·Sep 15, 2021
Hey, Oso engineer here. Good question. The rust core is indeed called from the ruby library (as it is with all of our 5 other host libraries). The core itself is pretty complex (there's a whole parser/interpreter in there), so maintaining it in a bunch of languages would be a bit hectic. There are some files inside `lib/oso/polar/ffi` that define the C bindings used by the rest of the library. Here's an example: https://github.com/osohq/oso/blob/main/languages/ruby/lib/os... We use the ffi gem to make that work: https://github.com/ffi/ffi EDIT: hobofan beat me to it! :)
In Why Authorization Is Hard
samjs·Dec 16, 2020
> It would be great if that was provided and had a stable ABI + .so for the rust code that I could install through a .deb or .rpm instead of building through cargo. This would be a great option. That's effectively how our build pipeline works anyway - we compile the polar-c-api [1] crate to a dynamic lib and embed in each language. If we made this available through package managers, we could also provide an alternative installation for, e.g. Python that didn't even need to use the precompiled wheel. > It would be great if `serde` was opt-in through cargo features, We rely on this for the FFI, since we pass events/messages back and forth as JSON. We _could_ make it opt-in for people using it in Rust projects though. Would that work for your use case? Running our test suite [2] takes about 9 minutes. 4 of which is running (a) the pure Rust
Read the rest
tests, (b) compiling the C library and running Python, Ruby, and Java tests, (c) building the WASM library and running Nodejs tests. That's why I'm a little surprised by the time. You're right though, I didn't factor in the slowdown for the macos builds. > Not trying to be overly critical, just trying to give a view! Compiling on other people's machines is expensive, a good way for me to buy into something like this instead of doing it myself (which is how I'm doing it right now!) is to reduce the dependency tree and make building stupid fast/easy. Thank you! I appreciate the feedback. We did go out of our way to make it as easy as possible to install from whatever language package manager (e.g. pip install oso will take seconds). We weren't anticipating people would want to compile it themselves from scratch, so it's a helpful perspective to get. [1]: https://github.com/osohq/oso/tree/main/polar-c-api [2]: https://github.com/osohq/oso/runs/1540314680?check_suite_foc...
In Oso – open-source policy engine for authorization in Rust

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.