If it can sit in its own repository, and that improves re-usability, that sounds like a good thing to me. I'd be happy with that under the TomEE TLP. I am sure some folks will prefer to see it under Geronimo. I am a TomEE committer, I am not yet a Geronimo committer (maybe someday....) so I would lean towards TomEE. Wherever it sits, it needs to be possible to work on it without being blocked.
Jon On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < [email protected]> wrote: > What about this vote David? > > Roberto's PR for MP-Config integration and mine about MP-JWT are still not > merged. > Most of the JWT code is server independent and therefor could be extracted > into a separate library. > > So where the code sits is definitely a question we need to address. > I don't believe the current TomEE repo is a good home. > > TomEE as the Apache TLP can on the other hand become an home. > We only need another another repo where we could put some reusable code. > > There are a couple of utility classes in TomEE that could also become a > reusable library. > I have prepared and pushed the 2 PRs for Chatterbox and Sheldon donation. > > So I would probably propose to create a dedicated git repo where we could > put all the reusable parts. > One benefit I see is that we could make the TomEE codebase a bit lighter. > > What do you guys think? > > > > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Matthew Broadhead < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > does this mean a reusable JWT library external to TomEE, or within the > > TomEE project? > > i have to agree with previous statements i read that TomEE is a bundle of > > libraries and not really the place to locate reusable pluggable projects. > > it is more like the place where you might plug a project in once it is > > working > > > > > > On 19/03/2018 11:39, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: > > > >> What's the other vote ("Geronimo one")? > >> > >> Jon > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hey David, > >>> > >>> How does this vote relates to the geronimo one you launched? > >>> > >>> Are they purely concurrent or can they be conditional one for the > other? > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 19 mars 2018 01:03, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a > >>> écrit : > >>> > >>> The vote for merging PR 123 does not address community will on what to > do > >>>> with the code beyond merging it. One can realistically vote +1 to > merge > >>>> the code, but then desire to see the code cleaned up and moved > >>>> elsewhere. > >>>> One can realistically desire seeing an attempt to clean up the code to > >>>> > >>> find > >>> > >>>> what is reusable and may wish to withhold a final decision until we > see > >>>> > >>> how > >>> > >>>> fruitful such a module would be. > >>>> > >>>> Out of respect for people who may not know exactly how they feel > (TomEE > >>>> > >>> or > >>> > >>>> Geronimo), this is a vote for the latter. > >>>> > >>>> Vote: Should we attempt to extract code from the JWT PR to see what is > >>>> reusable and how successful such a jar would be? > >>>> > >>>> +1 Let's give it a shot here > >>>> +-0 > >>>> -1 Let's do this elsewhere > >>>> > >>>> If the vote is +1 to attempt an extraction of reusable code here, > final > >>>> conclusion of if that extraction is worth it or where it should live > is > >>>> > >>> not > >>> > >>>> being voted on. People are welcome to decide differently based on the > >>>> results of the exercise. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -David > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >
