From amber-dev-return-41-apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Jun 15 12:21:37 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 67870 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2010 12:21:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2010 12:21:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 71496 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2010 12:21:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 71470 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2010 12:21:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact amber-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 71462 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2010 12:21:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:21:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1997.8 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,HTML_MESSAGE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.9] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:21:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 67847 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2010 12:21:10 -0000 Received: from localhost.apache.org (HELO mail-ww0-f47.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username simoneg, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:21:10 +0000 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so4879790wwb.6 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:21:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.158.147 with SMTP id q19mr3334723wek.64.1276604465491; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.2.199 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:21:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: APIs From: Simone Gianni To: amber-dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367fbb53af3253048910a3cf X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0016367fbb53af3253048910a3cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, so, one part of our roadmap are APIs. Each of us has his own idea of how an API should be, in general, and many o= f us already have an idea (or even code) on how an OAuth API should be :) There is no "absolute way" to determine if an API is better or worse than another. It mostly depends on use cases. Amber will (as many other systems) interact with : - external applications/frameworks, using Amber to integrate oauth - internal extensions, providing for example different token storages or interation different backends - modules of Amber itself I think it would be better to focus on the first API now : which use cases do we plan? How do you imagine the code of a web framework using Amber look like? If there are very different cases there is space for more than one API, for example a low level one and high level Fa=E7ade. Since our goal is to unify different (often existing) pieces and ease the path of adoption on projects that were planning to integrate OAuth, we'll need a bit of flexibility. Cast your code sample ideas :) People in projects that already use their ow= n implementation of OAuth can easily post real code. Simone --0016367fbb53af3253048910a3cf--