Would be nice if there would be a possibility to replace the Authenticator after creating the Client

[fseidl-bauradar]

As already requested by

#1015

it would be a nice Feature if RestSharp Handles the JWT Access- and RefreshToken.
In the current Implementation, a Authenticator Implementation is not able to Refresh the JWTTokenPair,
if the AccessToken is going to exceed runtime.
Because to Refresh The Token Pair, the Authenticator would need a to perform a RestRequest to the Server and therefor a RestClient.
But neither the DI neither a user can provide the RestClient, because to Construct a RestClient, we need to set the Authenticator.
This leads to a Circular Dependency, which is not solveable.

A possibility would be to Create another RestClient, for the Authenticator, but I don't think this would be a clean solution to the problem.
Another solution is to use the Interceptor Pattern Implementation, as provided in the PullRequest, bellow, because the Interceptors are provided inside a List, they can be changed even after the RestClient have been created.
As I think the Authenticator is a special form of the Interceptor Pattern, therefor this solution fits in mine optionion.
Additionally, I would say it's not unusual to allow adding Interceptors at any time.

#2076

[LukeFranky]

100% agree. This used to be possible, but was deprecated for some reason and now I have bunch of refactoring to do. Frustrating!

[bbuehrer]

Is there anything new on the subject?
I also need to be able to change the authenticator after creating the RestClient.

[fseidl-bauradar]

Sorry, currently I am waiting, seems like the maintainer is little bit busy

[abc123xxx]

Is there anything new on the subject?
I also need to be able to change the authenticator after creating the RestClient.

[rassilon]

@LukeFranky , @bbuehrer , @fseidl-bauradar, I mentioned in another issue recently that RestRequest has an Authenticator property that you can use on requests that require a different authentication mechanism than the default.

The reason that the property is now read-only is for thread safety reasons.

[abc123xxx]

Yes, that is the solution