You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by "Dirk Balfanz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2008/04/08 01:21:24 UTC
[jira] Created: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
-----------------------------------
Key: SHINDIG-185
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
Project: Shindig
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Gadgets Server - Java
Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
Here are a few reasons:
- It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
- Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
- If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
The attached patch renames the AuthenticationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Kevin Brown (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12586609#action_12586609 ]
Kevin Brown commented on SHINDIG-185:
-------------------------------------
This is really an issue you need to bring up in the spec discussion. Until the spec changes (or a consensus for a change has been reached), Shindig can't be changed. We're a reference implementation of the spec. http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadget-specs
Not closing this because the patch makes perfect sense if the proposed spec change is implemented. But it's important that NOBODY APPLY THIS PATCH UNLESS / UNTIL THE SPEC IS CHANGED!
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Cassie Doll (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12586817#action_12586817 ]
Cassie Doll commented on SHINDIG-185:
-------------------------------------
I am going to close this issue.
You can most definitely not put this into Shindig until the spec is changed, and sending an email to the spec mailing list does not mean that the spec has been updated. This will require an entirely new version of opensocial, in a new directory, with new documentation, new apis and what not.
Spec changes are not a one off thing. A lot of them happen at once. So, this change will be rolled into all the other changes once Shindig support opensocial 0.8. To prevent and further confusion, I am closing this bug.
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Dirk Balfanz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Dirk Balfanz updated SHINDIG-185:
---------------------------------
Attachment: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Kevin Brown (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12586885#action_12586885 ]
Kevin Brown commented on SHINDIG-185:
-------------------------------------
There's a big problem here in that gadgets.io is a *core feature*. It's not versioned, nor can it be.
There's absolutely no way to upgrade it in any non-trivial way until there's radical change in the spec.
This is why implicit dependencies are an awful idea, and why components need to be modular.
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Assignee: Cassie Doll
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Dirk Balfanz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12586978#action_12586978 ]
Dirk Balfanz commented on SHINDIG-185:
--------------------------------------
I don't know where the implicit dependencies comment was coming from, but I certainly agree with it.
Anyway - we know that currently nobody uses AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED, because support for it hadn't been checked in until a few hours ago. This will probably change in a matter of days or weeks. So, while I generally agree that "one-off" changes to specs are a bad idea, I think this might be an exception. If the opensocial 0.7 spec tomorrow said that the parameter is called OAUTH, who would notice?
Along the same lines - if the gadgets.io spec said one thing, and the opensocial spec 0.7 said another (and it wouldn't be until 0.8 until they're back in sync), what would the consequences be?
You guys are citing great rules ("keep the implementation in sync with the spec", "don't change the spec", etc.) - but the reason those rules exist is because we don't want to break things for developers. I would argue that in this case, we would cause more breakage by clinging to the rules than by violating them: everybody agrees that this will change down the road, so let's change it before the first person uses it.
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Assignee: Cassie Doll
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Brian Eaton (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12586619#action_12586619 ]
Brian Eaton commented on SHINDIG-185:
-------------------------------------
I put a +1 on your mail to the spec mailing list. Now can we do it? =)
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Kevin Brown (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12586979#action_12586979 ]
Kevin Brown commented on SHINDIG-185:
-------------------------------------
You're preaching to the choir. The fundamental problem here is with the spec -- and this isn't really the right forum for discussing that.
If we change it in Shindig, how will developers even know about the change? All we can do is go with what the spec says.
If the decision to change the spec (without a new version) is made, I'm all for it.
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Assignee: Cassie Doll
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Dirk Balfanz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12586613#action_12586613 ]
Dirk Balfanz commented on SHINDIG-185:
--------------------------------------
Ok, so how do I change the spec? I brought this up in opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com, and nobody objected. To be honest, nobody agreed, either - there were no responses.
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Closed: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Cassie Doll (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Cassie Doll closed SHINDIG-185.
-------------------------------
Resolution: Won't Fix
Assignee: Cassie Doll
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
> Assignee: Cassie Doll
> Attachments: patch-authenticated-2-oauth.txt
>
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (SHINDIG-185) Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
Posted by "Dirk Balfanz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Dirk Balfanz updated SHINDIG-185:
---------------------------------
Description:
I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
Here are a few reasons:
- It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
- Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
- If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
was:
I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
Here are a few reasons:
- It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
- Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
- If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
The attached patch renames the AuthenticationType to OAUTH.
> Incorrectly named AuthorizationType
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-185
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-185
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Gadgets Server - Java
> Reporter: Dirk Balfanz
>
> I propose to change gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.AUTHENTICATED to
> gadgets.io.AuthorizationType.OAUTH.
> Here are a few reasons:
> - It's hard to remember the difference between "SIGNED" and "AUTHENTICATED". If "AUTHENTICATED" somehow authenticates my fetches, then what does "SIGNED" do? Signing is a common way to authenticate messages. Very confusing.
> - Assuming that the gadgets.io.AuthorizationType enumeration lists (despite its name) different ways to authenticate, then having "AUTHENTICATED" as an authentication type doesn't make any sense.
> - If in version 2.0 of opensocial we want to support a cool newfangled authentication scheme NEWAUTH, then it would be kind of lame to to be stuck with an enum of (NONE, SIGNED, AUTHENTICATED, NEWAUTH).
> The attached patch renames the AuthorizationType to OAUTH.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.