Ah. My intention was a +1 would mean "We should create new JWT module in Geronimo now, regardless of what TomEE is discussing."
Not "can we ever" in a general sense, but should we do it right now. If someone would like to wait a bit longer, they should not vote +1. It could still happen later of course. -David > On Mar 18, 2018, at 7:32 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > Just to make sure I understand. a +1 on this to me means there may be a > module created in geronimo. Maybe not. But either way it shouldn't stop > what TomEE is doing. > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 8:59 PM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > My vote would be -0 and I hesitate even for a negative anything. > > I think the "Geronimo will do it anyway, collaborate or not" perspective > feels a bit like an ultimatum. That said, if people truly do want to move on > regardless of what happens in TomEE, that's exactly what should happen. > > I feel strongly that a project should not be obstructed by other projects who > feel ownership over an domain, be forced to collaborate, or otherwise be > stopped in their tracks. > > Here's how I'd like my vote read: > > - Waiting to see what TomEE decides or creates would be ideal in my mind, > but not necessary if there is support for moving forward > > - I wouldn't help, but I wouldn't stand in the way > > - I continue to have reservations naming reusable components after a dead > app server. I managed to have all my best efforts remain perfectly invisible > under the name "OpenEJB" and "EJB." If people want to put effort into > reforming the 15 year-old Geronimo brand, they are welcome to do so, but I > can't sign up for that again. I can't pretend this isn't a significant > obstacle. > > - I continue to feel we'd be stronger together (TomEE and Geronimo). With > these false lines making everyone have to get commit twice and hiding our > best work under a dead website and brand, we aren't getting the strength and > speed we need. > > > As long as I feel understood, not pushed into doing something I don't want to > do, I'm more than happy. > > > -David > > > On Mar 18, 2018, at 5:05 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Two votes are up in the TomEE community on what to do with PR #123 ( > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123 ). The first vote is if TomEE > > should merge it. The second vote is if TomEE should attempt to extract it. > > > > It was said 3-4 times in the discussion between both communities "geronimo > > will have a jwt-auth impl." This is absolutely ok, there is no rule that > > two projects cannot do the same or similar thing. Apache Tamaya exists and > > there is a Geronimo Config, both aim at MicroProfile Config compliance. > > This is OK by ASF standards and one community is not judged good or bad for > > choosing to also implement something. > > > > That said, decisions like this should be made by the project clearly. Some > > people may want to move ahead now. Some people may want to wait and see > > how things go with TomEE. > > > > Vote: Move ahead with creating a reusable JWT module > > > > +1 Let's get on this, now. There may be two impls, but that's ok. > > -+0 > > -1 Let's wait / maybe later / other > > > > > > -David > > >
