Hi all, I agree that at the beginning maybe it is better to start from already existing OAuth 2.0 structure. How advance is implementation of OAuth 1.0 in Amber project, because I couldn't find info about that?
We get many emails about the feature requests and further development of the leeloo from people using it. It would be great if we started commits to the Amber project, especially before upcoming soon draft -11 of the specification. We would love to hear any consensus on the project structure. Cheers, Lukasz Moren On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi guys, > just after Amber started we proposed the current project structure just to > provide transparent API and implementation both for OAuth 1 and 2; what I > think at the moment is that perhaps it may be reasonable to switch to the > structure you proposed since it goes in the direction of having an > implementation released early; I'd still maintain the signature and > specification API modules as they are now. > However in the future I'd love to have one implementation which is > transparently and consistently designed for both OAuth specifications. > So in the end I am considering it as a possible solution. > What do others think? > Cheers, > Tommaso > > 2010/11/16 Łukasz Moreń <[email protected]> > > > Hi, > > > > Thank you Simone for links, they were very helpful. > > > > I would like to create jira issues with patches for OAuth 2.0 project. > > However I have few concerns about the Amber project structure: > > > > 1. There are client, server, etc. folders in the main directory of Amber > > svn > > trunk. Maybe we should think about the structure that separates oauth 1.0 > > and 2.0 implementations. > > Our proposal is following: > > > > -trunk > > -oauth-1.0 > > -client > > -server > > -... > > pom.xml > > -oauth-2.0 > > -client > > -authorization-server > > -resource-server > > -common > > -... > > pom.xml > > pom.xml > > > > Main folder would contain parent pom for all oauth modules in the Amber > > project. We think it is good to separate oauth 1.0 and oauth 2.0 modules > as > > it will be hard to extract common part at least at the beginning. > > > > 2. IMHO would be good to create more components in jira for oauth 2.0 > > module, maybe similarly to > > what we have in the leeloo: [1] (oauth 2.0:client, authorization server > > and > > resource server). I don't have rights to add more components. > > > > [1] http://bitbucket.org/smartproject/oauth-2.0/wiki/Home > > > > Let us know what do you think. > > > > Thanks, > > Lukasz Moren > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Łukasz Moreń <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > It's released under Apache License Version 2.0 > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Lukasz > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Henry Saputra < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Łukasz, > > >> > > >> I couldnt find the licensing information about leelo from the website. > > >> > > >> What kind of license leelo support for usage? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Henry > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Łukasz Moreń <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > Thank you for your preliminary approval, it sounds great! I think > the > > >> OAuth > > >> > implementation will benefit from being included under Apache > umbrella. > > >> > > > >> > I know at least few people that are using OAuth leeloo already and > > some > > >> that > > >> > plan to use it in the near future. > > >> > We would like to move our code to Apache repositories as soon as > > >> possible > > >> > and continue development there, before (hopefully) more people start > > >> using > > >> > it. > > >> > We are currently busy with other work as well but we will try our > best > > >> to do > > >> > it smoothly (and pretty soon). > > >> > > > >> > Before we move OAuth leeloo to Amber, I have few concerns: > > >> > > > >> > 1) What is the procedure at ASF for moving code into an Apache > > >> repository? I > > >> > think we should get a committer access to AMBER? > > >> > 2) We hope to keep the library name (leeloo) and package names as > > people > > >> > blogged about it, mentioned in tweets, dzone, etc? > > >> > > > >> > I'll be looking forward to your reply. Please let me know if you > have > > >> any > > >> > questions or would like to adivse us about the process (licensing > > terms, > > >> > etc.). > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > Lukasz Moren > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Thanks, > > >> Henry > > >> > > > > > > > > >
