[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12655058#action_12655058
]
Krishna Sankar commented on SHINDIG-609:
----------------------------------------
Eiji et al,
I looked at this closely today. It is not a question of the least effort, it is
about the right logic behind the methods.
a) *id (spec) vs *_id (Shindig)
Should be *_id. Usually two words are separated by an underscore. So
opensocial_owner_id, opensocial_viewer_id and opensocial_app_id make sense.
Even on the spec[1], the xoauth_requestor_id has this scheme !
So change the relevant spec. Is it just [1] ?
b) xoauth_public_key (spec) vs xoauth_signature_publickey (Shindig)
Should be xoauth_public_key because that is what it is - the public key
of the consumer and is congruent to the usage elsewhere, IMHO.
So change Shindig.
c) xoauth_app_url (spec) vs opensocial_app_url (Shindig)
This, I think, is easy. Should be xoauth_app_url because that is the
general one.
So change Shindig.
I am sure this could cause some headache, but we need to have a systemic and
logical approach. This is why we also need multiple independent implementations
and some conformance efforts. But we are in a fast moving eco system and so
growing pains are natural.
I have also added an entry in JIRA
Cheers
<k/>
[1] https://sites.google.com/site/oauthgoog/2leggedoauth/2opensocialrestapi
> fix oauth url parameters
> ------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-609
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-609
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Common Components (Java)
> Reporter: David Primmer
>
> particularly:
> xoauth_signature_publickey / xoauth_public_key
> and
> opensocial_app_id / xoauth_app_url / opensocial_app_url
> for ref:
> http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-container/browse_thread/thread/bb5204db2476fbd7
> davep
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Eiji Kitamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to get clearer on OAuth on OpenSocial / Shindig and have a
> > few questions.
> > Sorry if these questions are not appropriate for this list.
> >
> > [1] opensocial_*id
> >
> > According to following document:
> > https://sites.google.com/site/oauthgoog/2leggedoauth/2opensocialrestapi
> >
> > OpenSocial container sends OAuth Consumer Request query with
> > * opensocial_ownerid
> > * opensocial_viewerid
> > * opensocial_appid
> >
> > But when I look at google code gadgets site document:
> > http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/reference/#gadgets.io
> >
> > It's said to send following query params which names are slightly different:
> > * opensocial_owner_id
> > * opensocial_viewer_id
> > * opensocial_app_id
> >
> > Actual Shindig implementation looks like sending queries same as
> > google code gadgets site explanation:
> > * opensocial_owner_id
> > * opensocial_viewer_id
> > * opensocial_app_id
> >
> > Is the one on oauthgoog just typo or do they have different meaning?
> >
> >
> > [2] xoauth_public_key
> >
> > According to following proposal:
> > http://dirk.balfanz.googlepages.com/oauth_key_rotation.html
> >
> > Public Key Identifier should be specified using "xoauth_public_key".
> > Same on google code gadgets site.
> > But actual implementation in Shindig seems like using
> > "xoauth_signature_publickey".
> >
> > Which is correct or should they be treated differently?
> >
> > [3] xoauth_app_url
> >
> > According to following proposal:
> > http://dirk.balfanz.googlepages.com/oauth_gadget_extension.html
> >
> > App url should be specified using "xoauth_app_url". But it looks like
> > there's "opensocial_app_url" mentioned on google code gadgets site.
> > Shindig is implemented with "opensocial_app_url" too.
> >
> > Which is correct or should they be treated differently?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
