Hi Evan, sorry for the delay.
On Tue, August 11, 2009 3:19 pm, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Our "custom" OMB handling is the original implementation of the spec. As > such, I think we should only remove it with extreme care. I agree with you that Laconica’s OMB handling as the most-used implementation is very important for the whole OMB standard. That’s precisely why I would prefer to use an implementation which anyone could use directly in his or her own project. It’s nearly impossible to separate Laconica’s own handling from Laconica-specific stuff. >> libomb does already handle many things better than we did before; > Such as...? As I said, there are three types of changes: * Performance: I would say that using libomb does not impact the performance – we loose some for the abstraction, but gain some because a few things are done faster. * Code style: The code looks way cleaner with libomb. The old code had much duplication and were not separated in terms of presentation and handling. Of course, no library fits as well as perfect custom code, but libomb fits better than what we had before. * Functionality: That’s probably what you wanted to know. There are a few things libomb does indeed handle better than we used to: - Finishremotesubscribe and Requesttoken are allowed to be GETs as well as POSTs in libomb. Neither OAuth nor OMB specifies the HTTP method. - libomb completely validates the subscriber’s profile in Finishremotesubscribe. - libomb completely validates the notice in postNotice. - libomb revokes, i. e. deletes a request token if the user does not authorize it. - libomb performs a better parsing of XRDS documents and accepts IDs linking to other XRDS documents. These changes are no big things, but just as every other fix to libomb, any user of the library directly benefits from them. Regards, Adrian _______________________________________________ Laconica-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
