There is my full support on that, I'd call an official vote to accept the new guys in the Amber Team. WDYT? Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ 2010/12/1 Pid <[email protected]>: > On 12/1/10 8:37 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: >> 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. > > And, if I'm honest, I've been pressed for time for a while. > >>> 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. > > We are pre-release. We can import, test & discuss ideas thereafter. > Other peoples input will be welcome & the list archive has a record of > the discussion to date. > >> 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? > > I am +1. > > If anyone else agrees, we need 1 mentor vote, (if my reading of the > recent incubator project management suggestions is accurate), & we can > proceed. > > > p > >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
