On 18/06/2010 10:25, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Pid,
> I did just minor reviews to your proposal (maven and svn stuff only)
> and I'd really appreciate if you could, before starting discussing
> about/modifying something:
>
> * move to proper 'client' package client-only related stuff (it would
> much more clear and easier for me add the server API);
There's only one interface each for Client and Server, all other
interfaces have shared use in both client & server. Are you suggesting
we move them to:
o.a.amber.client.OAuthClient
o.a.amber.server.OAuthServer
?
> * move your custom XML stuff to a dedicated module, since is not
> contained in the spec and doesn't match neither with OAuth Discovery
> 1.0;
I don't think this is necessary. It only exists in the o.a.amber.OAuth
class and it's for entirely local pre-use configuration. It's not an
alternative to OAuth Discovery.
It maps XML configuration files to the OAuthConsumer & OAuthProvider
interfaces via JAXB and provides the discovered data to the factory
object. The implementation only need to specify where to find the
concrete classes which implement these interfaces & JAXB does the rest
it's very efficient and makes it super easy for a developer to use the
library, by dropping some XML in the proper location.
It meets our stated goal of providing multiple configuration methods.
> * just write 2 lines on the ML about how the interfaces interact with
> each other, something simple like I did in a previous email.
2 lines might be tricky!
The o.a.amber.OAuth class is the only one with code and it's just for
processing the different methods of configuration, discovering
implementations, then configuring a factory object which can create a
client or a server.
OAuthClient has plenty of JavaDoc.
OAuthServer isn't defined yet, but I have some ideas.
p
> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day!
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Pid,
>> seen the commit, thanks, just give me the time to digest it :P I have
>> proposals for storages, already experienced in the past and part of it
>> is already contained in the existing code.
>> Chat later,
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Pid <pid@pidster.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've committed a proposal for the API spec, it aims to simplify the
>>> interaction with the library and focuses on configuration and setup.
>>>
>>> There are a couple of things to consider in the light of recent
>>> discussion, which I don't have proposals for as yet, namely:
>>>
>>> 1. configurable storage of some sort
>>>
>>> 2. the possible need to separate client & server factories
>>>
>>> 3. the server interface methods are not defined
>>>
>>>
>>> Please critique/discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>
>>
|