oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Łukasz Moreń <lukasz.mo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving OAuth leeloo from bitbucket to Apache repositories
Date Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:41:51 GMT
Hi Tommaso,

I am +1 and also talked to Simo who agrees on it too.


> Łukasz and Maciej did you check the right process required for you to
> donate

Leelo to Amber (remember links provided previously by Simo)?


 That's great to hear that agreement.
Maciej and myself have signed ICLA. I have become CXF commiter recently,
maybe it helps in Amber case.
Simone suggested to attach patches in JIRA, but maybe it is good idea to
wait for voting.
I think apart from changing package names and license headers we are ready
to contribute code and ideally becoming commiters.

Cheers,
Lukasz Moren

2010/12/1 Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>

> Hi Łukasz,
>
>
> 2010/12/1 Łukasz Moreń <lukasz.moren@gmail.com>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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
> > <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>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 <lukasz.moren@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > 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 <
> lukasz.moren@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's released under Apache License Version 2.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Lukasz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Henry Saputra <
> > > henry.saputra@gmail.com
> > > > >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 <
> > lukasz.moren@gmail.com>
> > > > >> 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
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message