Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rename callback => callback_uri

[Naitik Shah <[e-mail]>]

+1 for redirect_uri -- highest semantic value imho.


-Naitik



On Apr 16, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Evan Gilbert wrote:

> We should use the same name in the User-Agent and Web Callback flows. Also, although the authorization server won't be allowing JSONP requests, "callback" has become a bit of a defacto standard for JSONP and it would be nice to use a term that isn't overloaded?
> 
> Can we make them both "redirection"? Even better, maybe "redirect_uri"?
> 
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Luke Shepard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Facebook API requests are protected resources. They can be called either in a browser or in a server-to-server environment.
> 
> For example, a JSONP call for my name looks like this:
> 
>        https://api.facebook.com/restserver.php?api_key=361900759629&call_id=1271436355034&callback=FB.RestServer._callback&format=json&method=fql.query&query=SELECT%20name%20FROM%20user%20WHERE%20uid%3D2901279&v=1.0
> 
> The output (you can play with it here: http://fbrell.com/fb.api/everyone-data ):
> 
>        FB.RestServer._callback([{"name":"Luke Shepard"}]);
> 
> If we want that protected resource to take an access token as well, then it would look like:
> 
>        https://api.facebook.com/restserver.php?....&callback=FB.RestServer._callback&access_token=ACCESS_TOKEN
> 
> The "callback" parameter is used pretty universally for JSONP requests. For instance, see the Jquery docs: http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.getJSON/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:10 AM
> To: Luke Shepard
> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Naitik Shah; OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rename callback => callback_uri
> 
> Could you clarify a little more the environment in which this
> confusion arose?  What do you mean when you say "The protected
> resource typically accepts 'callback' as a parameter to support
> JSONP."?  What sort of software are you including in this?
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Luke Shepard wrote:
> 
> > We already had one developer try it out and get confused because the
> > server tried to treat the callback URL as a JSONP callback.
> >
> > The protected resource typically accepts "callback" as a parameter
> > to support JSONP. If a developer accidentally passes in callback
> > there (maybe they got confused) then the server can't give a normal
> > error message - instead it needs to either detect that it looks like
> > a URL or otherwise reject it.
> >
> > On a related note, I think it's more confusing calling it something
> > different in the user-agent flow (redirector) when it's essentially
> > doing the same thing.
> >
> >
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 5:37 AM
> > To: Naitik Shah; OAuth WG
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rename callback => callback_uri
> >
> > I don't think it is that confusing. Its a completely different
> > context from where JSON-P is used (note that in the User-Agent flow
> > it is called something else).
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/10 12:35 PM, "Naitik Shah" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > With the simplified params, the callback url parameter is now just
> > "callback". Since most major API providers already use "callback" to
> > signify JSON-P callback, can we rename this to "callback_uri"? This
> > will help avoid collisions and confusion.
> >
> >
> > -Naitik
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>