oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] use of the Annotations in Amber
Date Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:55:17 GMT
Hi David,
first of all thanks to mentoring that discussion that has been
continuing for 1 month, and sorry for my late reply but I had to
terminate 2 contributions for Cocoon3 and Bean Validation :P :)

Just to give you an overview about one of the n possible use cases,
the original idea of annotations is implemented in the original Amber
codebase[1][2]: since we're defining an API layer first, we need to
define a model of OAuth message, and it doesn't mean that
implementations *have to* be driven by annotations, I did it, someone
else is free to avoid it and keep them just for documentation

Another use of annotations I was going to experiment is to create
automatically marshaller/unmarshaller to/from the OAuth the
Authorization header etc.

Before to proceed I'll wait for your suggestions7feedbacks, thanks in advance :)
Have a nice day,

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/amber/trunk/signature-api/src/main/java/org/apache/amber/signature/message/RequestMessage.java
[2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/amber/trunk/signature-api/src/main/java/org/apache/amber/signature/signers/AbstractMethodAlgorithm.java
(see createBaseString() method)


On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:44 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Pid wrote:
>> On 27/06/2010 15:58, David Jencks wrote:
>>> <mentor>Are you sure you want to continue this discussion with a vote at
this point?  It's OK to have votes about anything you want :-) but.... they tend to be polarizing
and end up with a losing side who may not be happy.  I think that trying to get a consensus
on design decisions through discussion is often a better route.</mentor>
>>> <interested party>  I don't understand the details of this proposal.  Could
someone come up with a realistic example showing how the "same" OAuth message would be sent
using annotations, and not using annotations, and what would happen internally to this information?
 It might be obvious to anyone who knows anything about oauth but  would help me out a lot
</interested party>
>> What form would you like the example in, pseudo-code or written description?
> to the extent I understand the discussion.... :-D
> How about 2 java classes for the message, one with annotations, and the other using @Override
if its implementing an interface, and data for the fields of the objects, and the one or more
strings or other data objects extracted and combined from them?
> thanks
> david jencks
>> p
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Jun 25, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm here to call a new vote to define our design direction. Some
>>>> threads ago on this ML, Pid and I were discussing about the use, or
>>>> not, of Java metadata Annotations to enhance OAuth messages and
>>>> tokens.
>>>> Pros:
>>>> * marshallers/unmarshallers to/from strings could be auto-generated
>>>> using the APT;
>>>> * the calculation of the base string (just an example) is parameter agnostic.
>>>> Cons:
>>>> * not so hard writing parsers (JavaCC? AntLR? XText?) and serializers;
>>>> * not so hard writing the base string algorithm
>>>> So please cast your votes in favor of
>>>> [] Pro Annotations
>>>> [] Cons Annotations
>>>> The vote will stay open for the next 72 hours. It would be nice if the
>>>> choice comes with a justification, so everybody can take care about
>>>> someone else's considerations.
>>>> My vote if
>>>> [X] Pro Annotations
>>>> I already implemented the base string calculus based only on metadata
>>>> discovery and I didn't take care about the parameter retrieving
>>>> criteria. I'd love to have a choice to see Annotations in action on
>>>> compile-time :P
>>>> Cheers, have a nice weekend,
>>>> Simo
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/

View raw message