On 03/09/2015 11:51 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
Second attempt before giving up. What about have something like:
<meta-data android:name="org.aerogear.auth.baseUrl"
android:value="https://"/>
<meta-data android:name="org.aerogear.auth.endpoint"
android:value="myauthendpoint"/>
<meta-data android:name="org.aerogear.auth.accessTokenEndpoint"
android:value="myauthendpoint"/>
Not attached to any provider, easy for us to provide snippets for cut
and paste and we leave in the classe only what matters most. Wdyt?
That's
pretty much how Android android.app.Authenticator works.
Basically we would define a service, pass in the oauth2 information and
then have the activity do its magic.
If that's not a thing, never mind.
On 2015-03-09, Summers Pittman wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 11:06 AM, Erik Jan de Wit wrote:
>>>> Thoughts? Let me know if the idea is useless.
>>> The thought of supporting vendor specific configuration details makes me
>>> cringe.
>>
>> It convenient and not likely to change
> Because Facebook and Google are well known for not making arbitrary changes
> to public apis and configurations.
>
> More importantly as an Open Source project hitching our code to the
> configuration of a third party proprietary system is terrifyingly bad karma.
> Push is an exception ONLY because there isn't an equvalent open solution
> which has the same reach to devices.
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> --
> Summers Pittman
>>> Phone:404 941 4698
>>> Java is my crack.
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
Summers Pittman
>Phone:404 941 4698
>Java is my crack.