Johnny Bufu wrote:
> On 5-Jun-07, at 8:53 AM, Granqvist, Hans wrote:
> 
>> But it seems superflous: Since you cannot depend on args to
>> be ordered[1], you'll still need to iterate and match prefix
>> to values.
> Martin's proposal seems like a minor improvement to me - iterating  
> thorough openid.ns.* or splitting the value of openid.extensions and  
> then iterating through the result seems roughly equivalent.
> 
> Our implementation builds a map of extension aliases to namespaces  
> when a message is received and after that, at any point during the  
> life cycle of that message, extensions queries are  simple and quick  
> map lookups.
> 
> So I'd rather not add the openid.extension field.
> 

For what it's worth, I'm no longer in favour of my own proposal. :)

It was ill-thought-out and does not solve the problem I set out to solve.

My intention was to create a situation where the question of "Is 
extension x used in this request" requires a single dictionary lookup, 
which the extensions field does not solve.

Since that is not really workable without moving away from the use of 
URIs to identify extensions, I'm happy to accept this small wart for the 
sake of keeping things sane and simple.


_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

Reply via email to