If there is a static resource, isn't it like an API with only a GET method and no parameters? All static wouldn't work of course. But maybe there are opportunities for the RS to either push an OAI JSON file, or for the AS to be configured to consume them at certain locations? - Mike On 2017-03-02 16:06, Eve Maler wrote:
(Mentioning "#288" here just for searchability purposes...)
So it looks like the spec [3] supports something like wildcard definition for APIs. UMA, of course, means to target not just things we think of as "APIs" but also "piles of files" and other HTTP-based resources. Can you sketch out what it might look like to use this method? Are you really thinking of just doing this all statically (which would be a big change), or would we still have the ability for the resource part to be dynamically registerable even if the scope part is taken care of in a more OOB and likely static fashion (as we agreed on today's call)?
Eve Maler Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Mike Schwartz <mike@gluu.org> wrote:
This conversation today about whether to add "description" made me question if we have the right approach for resource registration. I opened this issue to track the idea for using the OpenApi JSON format (Swagger): https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/288 [1]
Perhaps instead of creating a whole "registration" API, we should just be documenting how to make this information discoverable? As a point of reference, Google publishes the scopes for it's API's: http://gluu.co/google-scopes
- Mike
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma [2]
Links: ------ [1] https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/288 [2] http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma [3] https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.0.0-rc0/versions/3.0.md