Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FB43C512 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 30127 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2012 09:49:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 30067 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2012 09:49:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact amber-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 30048 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jul 2012 09:49:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:49:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of tommaso.teofili@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.175] (HELO mail-lb0-f175.google.com) (209.85.217.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:49:43 +0000 Received: by lbol5 with SMTP id l5so8372707lbo.6 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:49:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=VG4G1uCe11begGWPSnwJXNRP0w2cxa2eM01ithgi+yE=; b=Zg2l6ek0OmYNejdXUHGqvz4P4iHXfwQ/smE2l9hX2yLFr295C9b4QpH9V5NUjnWZhr ZiNtFKcGzMpGriMImRcrPwJVFLwIwRoGo26cPPTWZ4iOQ5VLnAMZQASn9JHsFi4bFwf/ zaCR4UFRp1D0beGeMqy8BncaNN2G1TBro2kR1YXmU0SALZEkYlrLYBQ/C5d5lspg/WMR XOQnhi5kTJ+jbNvtoZHm6znjEe+zqDD5c+yiHf64CH151FAw7YGgG6qkpMmqQJAOxmCg NgVCTGcP13RU3EGwusy8qpsgkqZXz2DQz9WHuQY4OvbK+E6Tb9ztfBzuinkQ7oUSO8aQ BQvg== Received: by 10.112.42.164 with SMTP id p4mr7787454lbl.54.1341308962375; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:49:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.5.229 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 02:48:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Tommaso Teofili Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:48:42 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: oath2.0 module on top? To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba1812963c870b04c3e9d464 --90e6ba1812963c870b04c3e9d464 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Simo, what you propose makes sense, however I think the plans are also to gradually re-introduce, at least, the spec and signature modules thus I'm not sure about it. Cheers, Tommaso 2012/7/3 Simone Tripodi > Hi all guys, > > since the only module we process ATM is the oath2.0 (and related > submodules), do you agree I move submodules on top level? Maybe I > missed some discussions to keep them as they are currently? > > Best, > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > --90e6ba1812963c870b04c3e9d464--