That's right. It would help various extensions as well. On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
> So the thinking is that this is just a generic "include" or "one level of > indirection" feature that is orthogonal to other flows? > > FWIW, I really like that notion. It's also very easy to describe and > understand conceptually. > -- > John Panzer / Google > jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org <http://www.abstractioneer.org/> / > @jpanzer > > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I fully agree on it. >> >> Instead of doing as a flow, defining request_url as one of the core >> variable would be better. >> The question then is, whether this community accepts the idea. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Manger, James H < >> james.h.man...@team.telstra.com> wrote: >> >>> Nat, >>> >>> > On the other hand, you are starting to think of it as a generic >>> "include" mechanism, are you? >>> >>> Yes. That feels like the simplest mental model for this functionality, >>> and the simplest way to specify it. >>> >>> -- >>> James Manger >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ >> http://twitter.com/_nat_en >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/ http://twitter.com/_nat_en
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
