I'll recheck whether passing a specific basic authorization header works, if it does, I'll close the PR and follow up here. If it doesn't, I'll follow up with more specific details.
The code change wasn't made for no reason though, which would suggest that it doesn't work in the desired way. There was discussion on it at the time and the change was committed. The revert was a "whoops, sorry my script messed up and that got reverted by accident when we tried to fix the damage", as opposed to based on the merit of the actual functionality itself. I'd be grateful if the community could consider re-applying this lost patch. Many thanks Jon On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jon, > > did you consider making it working without any code change? it does AFAIK. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > 2017-07-05 12:47 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> > : > > > Hi > > > > A few months back we introduced some functionality to allow the client to > > authenticate using a basic auth header. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-1974. This was merged, but > > subsequently lost when a script was accidentally executed against the > wrong > > branch, and a git reset --hard HEAD^X issued to revert the mistake - see > > this thread here: > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Commit-deletion-td4680672.html > . > > > > Given that this was previously merged, could we consider putting it > back? I > > have prepared a PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/85, and will run > > the full test suite on it to ensure it a) still works, and b) the merge > > doesn't break anything. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jon > > >
