oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Roadmap
Date Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:39:31 GMT
IIUC you are debating whether it is ok to develop an api that you hope will become a standard
of some other organization, at apache.

Code developed at apache is released under the ASL which imposes some conditions on use of
the code.  As long as the other organization is willing to abide by these conditions there
should be no problem proposing code developed at apache as a standard.

As a practical matter I think it would make some sense to start out with the api in org.apache.amber
and change the package when it is in a state to be proposed as a standard.  I don't think
this is a firm requirement however.

I'd suggest asking on legal-discuss if you have further doubts or questions.

thanks
david jencks

On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Pid wrote:

> 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.
> 
> If it's not possible under Apache rules - then can I recommend we
> differentiate (somehow, maybe by package) the API from the
> implementation such that I can restart a parallel effort in the OAuth WG
> to gain acceptance for a Java API spec, for later backport?
> 
> 
>> It would be different if OAuth.net already defined an API spec, like
>> for example the JAX-RS spec that comes from a JSR.
> 
> 1. All of the Java implementations so far have been non-standard and
> without any effort at either a common API or "Spec only" component.
> 
> 2. They don't appear to have expertise/interest in doing this
> themselves, however, much of the initial interest was from members of
> the OAuth WG list in response to my suggestion (to that mailing list)
> that a standard Java API was developed.
> 
> 3. It has to start somewhere.
> 
> 
> $0.02
> 
> 
> p
> 
>>> 2. Core implementation
>> 
>> does everybody shares the same vision of how modules should be
>> separated? I'd ask and wait a general consensus before starting
>> working, as people is used to in Apache...
>> 
>>> 3. Example "instant OAuth server" (.war)
>> 
>> Cool :)
>> 
>>> 
>>> p
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message