oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Lindner <plind...@linkedin.com>
Subject Re: Roadmap
Date Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:58:13 GMT
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.

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.

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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message