On 18/06/2010 10:25, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi Pid, > I did just minor reviews to your proposal (maven and svn stuff only) > and I'd really appreciate if you could, before starting discussing > about/modifying something: > > * move to proper 'client' package client-only related stuff (it would > much more clear and easier for me add the server API);
There's only one interface each for Client and Server, all other interfaces have shared use in both client & server. Are you suggesting we move them to: o.a.amber.client.OAuthClient o.a.amber.server.OAuthServer ? > * move your custom XML stuff to a dedicated module, since is not > contained in the spec and doesn't match neither with OAuth Discovery > 1.0; I don't think this is necessary. It only exists in the o.a.amber.OAuth class and it's for entirely local pre-use configuration. It's not an alternative to OAuth Discovery. It maps XML configuration files to the OAuthConsumer & OAuthProvider interfaces via JAXB and provides the discovered data to the factory object. The implementation only need to specify where to find the concrete classes which implement these interfaces & JAXB does the rest it's very efficient and makes it super easy for a developer to use the library, by dropping some XML in the proper location. It meets our stated goal of providing multiple configuration methods. > * just write 2 lines on the ML about how the interfaces interact with > each other, something simple like I did in a previous email. 2 lines might be tricky! The o.a.amber.OAuth class is the only one with code and it's just for processing the different methods of configuration, discovering implementations, then configuring a factory object which can create a client or a server. OAuthClient has plenty of JavaDoc. OAuthServer isn't defined yet, but I have some ideas. p > Many thanks in advance, have a nice day! > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Simone Tripodi > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Pid, >> seen the commit, thanks, just give me the time to digest it :P I have >> proposals for storages, already experienced in the past and part of it >> is already contained in the existing code. >> Chat later, >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Pid <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've committed a proposal for the API spec, it aims to simplify the >>> interaction with the library and focuses on configuration and setup. >>> >>> There are a couple of things to consider in the light of recent >>> discussion, which I don't have proposals for as yet, namely: >>> >>> 1. configurable storage of some sort >>> >>> 2. the possible need to separate client & server factories >>> >>> 3. the server interface methods are not defined >>> >>> >>> Please critique/discuss. >>> >>> >>> p >>> >>> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
