Breaking the api IMHO needs stronger justification than naming consistency.
But thats just my two cents. Kind regards, Jan 2009/3/15 Marius <[email protected]> > > Folks, > > Writing about OpenID in LIftBook inherently made me use it so I can > use valid examples. Everything worked smoothly ... util I turned off > cookies. This broke the OpenID flow and the Identity Provider side > returned an error page. There were two fundamental problems: > > 1. On redirect the Location was updated encodeURL from response > regardless if this was an absolute URL and jsessionid part was > becoming part of the redirect of the Identity Provider destination URL > which was obviously wrong > > 2. OpenID code did not call S.encodeURL for the return_url meaning > that the Identity Provider was redirecting back to our site and since > jsessionid part was no there it was pocessed in the context of a new > session and not the correct one. > > > I will be committing the fix for this a a couple of minutes ... woks > smooth now. But there is a minor thing. We have the traits: > > OpenIdVendor and > OpenIDConsumer > > does anyone has any objections renaming OpenIDConsumer to > OpenIdConsumer (for naming consistency purposes)? > > > Br's, > Marius > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
