Obviously OAuth is a standard, but since it allows so many vastly different behaviors, most implementations are not reusable and that makes it de-facto proprietary.
Actually OAuth 2.0 is a “framework”, or at least that is what the title of the RFC says. Furthermore, see the section on interop in the specification: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-1.8. The whole complaint is mentioned in the RFC :-)
All pipe is to be made of a long hole, surrounded by metal centered around the hole.
Outer-diameter of all pipes must exceed the inner-diameter. Otherwise, the hole will be on the outside of the pipe.
ll pipe over six inches in diameter is to have the words “Large Pipe” painted on it, so that the fitter will not use it for small pipe.
Whenever I read something like the oauth spec, I feel like I’m reading the above. Mountains of words which describe something so obvious it should not need speccing combined with impenetrable descriptions of basic concepts.
I get that you don’t like it, but everything?
Wish I could penalize stories for using clickbait headlines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth
uh?
Obviously OAuth is a standard, but since it allows so many vastly different behaviors, most implementations are not reusable and that makes it de-facto proprietary.
Please just read the article.
Actually OAuth 2.0 is a “framework”, or at least that is what the title of the RFC says. Furthermore, see the section on interop in the specification: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-1.8. The whole complaint is mentioned in the RFC :-)
The link to pipe spec is great.
Whenever I read something like the oauth spec, I feel like I’m reading the above. Mountains of words which describe something so obvious it should not need speccing combined with impenetrable descriptions of basic concepts.