Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LTI 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 2.0 implementations #12

Open
3 of 4 tasks
Tape opened this issue May 13, 2014 · 8 comments
Open
3 of 4 tasks

LTI 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 2.0 implementations #12

Tape opened this issue May 13, 2014 · 8 comments

Comments

@Tape
Copy link
Collaborator

Tape commented May 13, 2014

This is definitely a very long term issue, but a few final drafts of the spec have been published (most notably LTI 2.0). It would be cool to implement them. The main issue I foresee here is that very very few platforms actually use any other version than 1.0 as of now, so there's not very many things to test against.

http://www.imsglobal.org/lti/

@omsmith
Copy link
Owner

omsmith commented May 21, 2014

Yeah, I'd looked at it briefly. Between proxies and storing tool settings on the consumer and all that, it's a must more pervasive situation than just checking signatures. Would need to figure out where to draw the lines between ideally separate modules that can be easily used together.

@Tape
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Tape commented Sep 9, 2014

I've been taking a look at the implementation guides for 1.1 and 1.1.1 and it looks like those are fully backwards compatible, they actually use the same version string. What we could do is add additional boolean flags and whatnot onto the existing base to check if the new functionality exists. The only real new items are the gradebook feature and the role_scope_mentor param. I'll look into implementing these, they look pretty basic.

@Tape
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Tape commented Oct 30, 2014

Seeing as how 1.2 is still in a draft state and all it really adds is transitionary structures for 2.0 I'd say we can drop that from the list.

@jinpa
Copy link

jinpa commented Feb 13, 2015

I'm trying to pick a stack for building LTI components, and am only just starting to learn about this space. It looks like since this discussion, the LTI 2.0 spec has been finalized. Are there plans to build support for that into this library? If so, is there a rough expected timeframe? Thanks!

@Tape
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Tape commented Feb 19, 2015

Hi there! Sorry for the slow response. We do have plans to eventually support it, but the adoption rate is fairly low at this time. There is not many new features right now and most of the vendor extensions are implemented using the 1.x specification. The next step would probably be to implement 1.2 since it is a transition version to 2.0.

I can safely say though if the adoption rate increases 2.0 will definitely be implemented.

@octavpo
Copy link

octavpo commented Aug 12, 2015

I'd also be very interested to see this library work with LTI 2.0 soon. Moodle is working on implementing it, we'd want to start using it as soon as it's ready, so it would be great if we had a library readily available. If you need a test site, Sakai says they've already implemented it since version 10.0. Thanks.

@jasonfill
Copy link

Is there any update as to the status of 2.0? We would be willing to help some of the development on it, but I was curious if anything has started to this point.

@rodneytamblyn
Copy link

+1 on LTI 2. There's a dearth of LTI 2 libraries at the moment. I'd willing to sponsor work in this area to see progress. Moodle and Blackboard are both supporting LTI 2 now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants