we are so back (first real commit)

aws_sigv4/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# aws_signing library
+Yeah so this is a library for signing things with AWS SigV4.
+Pretty straightforward.
+In fact, there is are only 3 methods on the public API
+1. to make the client
+2. Change the client region (cause why not?)
+3. To transform an unsigned request that will be sent to an AWS compatible server to one with proper SigV4 headers
+(With this wording, should I take a mutable reference to headers instead of...hmmm, we will see if I get bored enough to improve it myself.)
+
+If I'm being completely honest, this was part of my own `r2client` that I wrote, which is uses S3
+So I don't imagine that I come back to this to actually make a proper AWS Signing library.
+I could imagine it being useful to *someone* who also wants to make an AWS abstraction that doesn't have 2 **BILLION** dependences.
+
+## Usage
+
+wait that's what the doc comments and `cargo doc` command is for lmao,
+guess I'll get rid of this block
+
+### Unexpected Errors
+If you're getting errors related to invalid signatures and you're thinking "It's probably that damn crate I'm using from that newbie!",
+you're probably right.
+If you got here because crates.io search brought you here, nice.
+Didn't mean for that to happen, sorry!
+There are much more developed options out there, like [reqsign](https://github.com/apache/opendal-reqsign), which will also handle more
+of the service related things for you.
+
+Alternatively, you can try to stick with this crate (mistake)
+Using log level trace with whatever logging crate you use will print out all steps of the AWS signing process, so you can follow along
+with your favorite documentation/examples and figure out where things go wrong.
+With this you can either raise an issue, or review the code yourself to implement a working solution.
+
+## Todo
+
+ - [ ] Create unit tests
+ - [ ] Add option for session keys
+ - [ ] Additional client or whatever for weirdos who want to use SigV4a
+ - [ ] Perhaps drop `http` as a dependency?
+ - [ ] Alternatively, have users pass a mutable reference to a HeaderMap instead of cloning and returning a new one.
+  - This can kinda hurt ease of use...maybe, but I feel like the slight performance gain and easier management of custom headers makes it worth.
+  - That's also acting like the crate is mature enough to do anything but provide the minimal headers for SigV4
+ - [ ] SigV4a
+  - Is this even really used?
+
+## Contributing
+What.
+
+This crate is supposed to be a really simple way to sign AWS request headers and nothing else.
+Again, I created it for my Cloudflare R2 (AWS S3) client and I imagine there are a few gaps for other services,
+as well as some exceptions to the general programmatic things I saw in the documentation.
+
+If you'd like to help improve it, maybe to make sign requests for some other AWS service, then I'd
+appreciate if as specific unit test was added to ensure functionality.
+This should be along with the other unit tests remaining intact  and passing (unless they are blatantly incompatible
+with some AWS documentation)
+
+The code base (one lib.rs file) is pretty straightforward, it very directly follows the outline that AWS's SigV4 documentation provides,
+explicitly containing all prerequisite functions and having a function call for all 5 of the steps.
+I did this since the other examples were hard to follow, just a chunk of code that doesn't explain itself at any point.
+All prerequisite functions, along with functions that don't require any of the keys/credential fields (in SigV4Credentials)
+are defined outside of the struct.
+
+Gl;hf
+
+# welp
+figure I'd try my hand at writing some public stuff like this, even though I'm not planing on publishing this publicly, only
+compiled in the r2client.
+I feel...okay about it.
+I still feel like this stuff will be so small no matter what that I can still put a little personality into it.
+
+I am incredibly verbose, shocking I know, but I think that's a bad thing.
+I should be more brief, and then more verbose when relevant within the code.
+Outside of that though, I think this is...fine.
+I just need to get better at less yapping.
+
+I really think this crate is too intermingled with the R2 Client to be useful to anyone else, really, although I think this was 
+*fine* for organizational purposes.
+And who knows.
+Maybe I'll need it again.