Hi Tommaso, I am +1 and also talked to Simo who agrees on it too.
> Łukasz and Maciej did you check the right process required for you to > donate Leelo to Amber (remember links provided previously by Simo)? That's great to hear that agreement. Maciej and myself have signed ICLA. I have become CXF commiter recently, maybe it helps in Amber case. Simone suggested to attach patches in JIRA, but maybe it is good idea to wait for voting. I think apart from changing package names and license headers we are ready to contribute code and ideally becoming commiters. Cheers, Lukasz Moren 2010/12/1 Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> > Hi Łukasz, > > > 2010/12/1 Łukasz Moreń <[email protected]> > > > 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? > > > > there is an OAuth 1.0 implementation made by Pid [1] which inclusion had > been frozen due to specification API design concerns, right at the moment > maybe we should go bottom-up and align iteratively specification and > implementation APIs. > > > > > > 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. > > > > I am +1 and also talked to Simo who agrees on it too. > > Łukasz and Maciej did you check the right process required for you to > donate > Leelo to Amber (remember links provided previously by Simo)? > > Mentors, should we call a vote for the Leelo inclusion? > > Once this has been clarified we can open an issue for the code > import/grant. > Cheers, > Tommaso > > [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-3 > > > > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
