Starting today, I start writing that document.  It might not be in best
english but we need something written down ASAP.
I will make sure, as best as I can, to set the stage, contain the scope and
include use-cases and add many examples.  It would be great to add some
architectural overview and semantics clarification...
I hope that many people can contribute (if only by reviewing and providing
feedback). Writers are also welcome.
I will start with an outline that I will pass to a few people and then
publish what we have for a general review...
If you are interested, please let me know.

Pat.

> From: John Mettraux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:08:41 +0900
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: [openwferu-dev] Re: restful authentication (and authorization maybe)
> 
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> On Jan 8, 2008 3:17 AM, Matt Zukowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> Now, aside from the above, I get the feeling that John is not especially
>> excited about all this RESTful stuff -- not the way Pat and I are anyway.
>> Maybe we haven't made a good case for it, or maybe it's just not really how
>> John envisioned OpenWFEru evolving. Either way, it would be tough to try to
>> get this  off the ground unless John is equally interested in seeing it
>> happen.
>> Furthermore, I think that it would be a mistake to see this RESTful
>> stuff as just an API -- a way of talking to the OWFE engine (and I think
>> that's how John sees it).
> 
> If you had some time to write down a few words more about this last
> paragraph, it is very interesting.
> 
> 
>> Coming up with this API demands a fair bit of
>> reflection back on the engine itself ( i.e. thinking about it in terms of
>> 'resources'), and I personally found this exercise unexpectedly frustrating.
>> I'm still not sure if this is because I just don't get John's architectural
>> decisions (likely because I'm fairly new to thinking about BPM systems), or
>> because there are some dubious semantics hiding in there. In any case, as it
>> stands, I think building a meaningful RESTful API around OpenWFEru may be
>> difficult unless some conceptual accommodation is made in the underlying
>> system (and this is 1) hard, and 2) not fun).
> 
> I was stuck 4 years back. I had to start thinking myself about a
> RESTful API for OpenWFEru to start realising what you just explained.
> Sorry for being so slow.
> 
> Since those Fluxr discussions, the engine as changed a lot, so some of
> the hard / not fun aspects may have vanished. Fluxr may have been
> side-tracked but it has certainly influenced OpenWFEru.
> 
> Here is where I ended up (for the record) :
> http://jmettraux.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/restful-workflow-engine/
> 
> 
>> In regards to the original topic here: John, I agree. A centralized
>> authentication/authorization system in the style of restful_authentication
>> would be a good, useful thing, and the "standalone project" you're referring
>> to may turn out to be RubyCAS -- at least this is how I see the project
>> evolving. Support for OpenID is already in the works, as is a RESTful
>> version of the CAS protocol. This might make both you and Pat happy, in that
>> RubyCAS would be able to authenticate against OpenID, while providing a
>> restful_authentication-like interface. (Support for OpenAuth may be a
>> problem, but in any case I think we should deal with authentication before
>> authorization, since it's possible can get by with just the former).
> 
> Matt, you're great.
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/rubycas-server/
> http://code.google.com/p/rubycas-client/
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> John Mettraux   -///-   http://jmettraux.openwfe.org
> 
> > 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"OpenWFEru dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to