So the thinking is that this is just a generic "include" or "one level of indirection" feature that is orthogonal to other flows?
FWIW, I really like that notion. It's also very easy to describe and understand conceptually. -- John Panzer / Google [email protected] / abstractioneer.org <http://www.abstractioneer.org/> / @jpanzer On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > I fully agree on it. > > Instead of doing as a flow, defining request_url as one of the core > variable would be better. > The question then is, whether this community accepts the idea. > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Manger, James H < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Nat, >> >> > On the other hand, you are starting to think of it as a generic >> "include" mechanism, are you? >> >> Yes. That feels like the simplest mental model for this functionality, and >> the simplest way to specify it. >> >> -- >> James Manger >> > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > http://twitter.com/_nat_en > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
