As this is not part of the IMS specification it will probably only work with Canvas-based tool consumers. I think it would be better to either use the Result service (if a comment field is required) or to add a separate Canvas-specific service to minimise any confusion with what should be expected to work for all tool consumers.

@spvickers I'm quite confident you have a better understanding of this codebase than I do :), so what you're saying makes a lot of sense, although inclusion of the parameters here is of course option.

At any rate, I'm happy to try and modify this to work better with the existing structure if you don't mind giving me some more direction (ie: similar examples, etc). Let me know your thoughts. I've got a working Canvas integration I can develop and test against, but not really anything for other LMSes at the moment.

We are looking at whether the code should be refactored in some way, and one area which had not been considered in the past is the ease of adding in bespoke services which lie outside the specification. Perhaps it is just a matter of subclassing to create a Canvas specific variation, etc? Ideas welcome.