Hi guys, seems there is no -1 so any objection to create the repo next week?
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> 2018-03-19 8:29 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > +1 to host jwt-auth @G whatever tomee does. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > 2018-03-19 4:09 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>: > >> 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 >> > > >> > >> >> >
