W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > November 2012

Re: the terms for to and from

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:28:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKh8pZqcYmdhgM99Kvn6nQS1DMdzmyysQE5=b4GaqGm4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pelle Braendgaard <pelle@stakeventures.com>
Cc: Andrew Miller <amiller@cs.ucf.edu>, opentransact@googlegroups.com, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 29 November 2012 18:46, Pelle Braendgaard <pelle@stakeventures.com>wrote:

> via would be the one to use if it's necessary.
>
> I personally can't see the need for it though in a TCP/IP world where
> everything is in theory directly connected.
>
> That said I don't understand all the web credits use cases.
>

Hi Pelle.  Yes, I've had a bit of feedback along these lines.  What I am
going to do is write up some user stories.

The main idea of webcredits is a clean modular separation of concerns.  You
might think of a full payment system to be like a car, whereas webcredits
is the engine.  However there are circumstances where webcredits can be
used as standalone, for example, if you are dealing with trusted parties.

One thing we've learnt working with identity over the years, is that a
clean separation of components can fit together to make a system.  So for
example authentication can be handled in a number of ways and a good
standardization should allow you to swap in and swap out the ones you
need.  So in the case of OpenTransact it could be OAuth for authentication
and the OpenTransact for the API.

IMHO, part of standardization should try and achieve a few high level
functional engineering goals ... e.g. loose coupling, non collision of
APIs, clean modular design.  In this way we can take different parts that
people work on and reuse them in particular use cases and workflows.

Does that make a bit more sense?


>
> P
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Miller <amiller@cs.ucf.edu>wrote:
>
>> Is there a "via"
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Pelle Braendgaard
>> <pelle@stakeventures.com> wrote:
>> > I've always argued it is more intuitive and follows other similar email
>> > standards, which is why we use it in OpenTransact.
>> >
>> > I think the PaySwarm community expressed some openness to change to
>> that at
>> > some point.
>> >
>> > P
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've been looking at the terms "to" and "from" wrt a transfer in
>> >> webcredits / opentransact / payswarm and pingback ongologies
>> >>
>> >> Payswarm uses
>> >>
>> >> source
>> >> destination
>> >>
>> >> Opentransact uses
>> >>
>> >> to
>> >> from
>> >>
>> >> Pingback uses
>> >>
>> >> source
>> >> target
>> >>
>> >> There's a slight complexity in that pingback has a "to" field to which
>> is
>> >> your pingback service.  So there's possible collisions of named query
>> >> variables a theoretical possibility.
>> >>
>> >> Of these 3 I think that "to" and "from" are the most intuitive, due to
>> >> similarity to email / sms etc.
>> >>
>> >> I'm considering changing web credits to use these fields.
>> >>
>> >> Any thoughts?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://picomoney.com - A whole new kind of money
>> > http://payglo.be - Blog about payments from a global perspective
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Miller
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://picomoney.com - A whole new kind of money
> http://payglo.be - Blog about payments from a global perspective
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 10:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:21 UTC