On 15/06/2010 16:43, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > Hi all, > > 2010/6/15 Pid <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > 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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
