oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pid <pids...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Roadmap
Date Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:05:42 GMT
On 15/06/2010 17:58, Paul Lindner wrote:
> Amber, being an Apache project, should use the org.apache.amber namespace
> and adhere to the Apache
> way<http://incubator.apache.org/learn/theapacheway.html>
> .
> 
> There's no reason why this particular implementation should be the
> "standard" unless you want to go through the trouble of  going through the
> JCP and making a JSR.  Instead focus on making this implementation the best
> it can be, with the best support of the standard and with the most vibrant
> community.

OK, cool.

> Regarding packaging - the simplest way going forward is to bundle all the
> interfaces and domain objects into amber-*-api packages and have
> corresponding amber-*-impl packages.

Yep.


p


> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Pid <pidster@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 15/06/2010 16:43, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> 2010/6/15 Pid <pid@pidster.com <mailto:pid@pidster.com>>
>>>
>>>     On 15/06/2010 10:28, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>     > Hi all guys,
>>>     >
>>>     >>
>>>     >> 1. API in "net.oauth." (to be contributed back to the OAuth WG)
>>>     >
>>>     > My opinion is -1 for the "net.oauth" package since seems to me a
>>>     > little out of scopes. Please don't take it personally, but AFAIK
>> we're
>>>     > not allowed to use Apache Incubator as a forge where we could
>> create a
>>>     > codebase to contribute to some else, maybe our Mentors could
>> explain
>>>     > us better :(
>>>
>>>     The project proposal included a clear statement that the API spec
>> would
>>>     be available to others wanting to create an alternative
>> implementation.
>>>      There were no objections to this in principal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pid, I read in the proposal that we're going to deal with "allowing
>>> re-use by other developers", and I am fully committed to it, not to
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand?
>>
>> The proposal is clear about the API spec being developed as a separate
>> component/package*.  We'd then develop an implementation (and some
>> extras) against that API spec.
>>
>>
>>> develop an (alternative) API to contribute back to OAuth WG, and
>>> basically I couldn't see any reason for doing that.
>>> Just my opinion.
>>> Tommaso
>>
>> We'd only propose the API specification back to the OAuth WG (not the
>> implementation).  In order to promote re-use we'd basically have to
>> propose it back to OAuth, no?  (That's not to say that they'd welcome it
>> with open arms, they might of course completely reject it...)
>>
>> Otherwise, we're just building "Yet Another Java OAuth Implementation".
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>> * Probably "org.apache.amber", maybe "net.oauth" later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 



Mime
View raw message