oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: API proposal
Date Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:01:53 GMT
"feature of the spec API" sounds to me a little against what we
discussed in the previous thread of 16 messages :P

We all agreed in having a "pure OAuth spec" module, even at the
beginning I wasn't totally convinced, but well, it makes a lot of
sense and we've been discussing with the shared intent to have it -
and I hope we'll start making it ASAP. Of course I'd like too someone
else participate in this discussion, but not just binding votes but
rather expressing their ideas, their vision, their suggestions
first!!! Then we'll find our way.

At that stage, for what I can see, we're still far to call any vote.
Maybe we should start changing approach and thinking about how to
merge ideas, rather then try to explain what's the better one.

BTW, can you explain me what could imply moving the XML stuff in an
hypothetical "amber-impl" module?

Tomorrow I'll have more spare time to read your javadoc, I'll have a
deep look to your stuff. I'd like if you could do the same with the
original codebase.
Thanks in advance, have a nice weekend,
Simo

>>
>> It is, since the XML stuff is part of the amber implementation and not
>> for the specification API.
>
> I think we can make it a feature of the spec API that certain methods of
> configuration are 'required' - and that the o.a.amber.OAuth class
> performs config & implementation discovery.
>
> But as we disagree, maybe you could make a proposal for what the entry
> point(s) should be instead and we could have a vote or something?
>
>
> p
>

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/

Mime
View raw message