On 15/06/2010 17:58, Paul Lindner wrote: > 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.
OK, cool. > 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. Yep. p > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Pid <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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
