Roberto PR *is* merged JL. He did the work to be able to consume any CDI "container" lib.
So I'd just extract the code as we discussed together in G before that mess and move forward to keep TCK and add the lib in the MP distro Roberto created to fit that design. As soon as you imported the lib in G, I will make sure to help to make it releasable. As the ee concurrency utilities dev I can guarantee you it is wrong to put it in TomEE :( - mea culpa here. I can understand the "i cant commit" but you can PR and several of these objections are coming from people willing RTC which leads to the same blocking state so not sure I get the rational to break projects here and make them messy which would deserve asf IMHO. Le 27 mars 2018 23:37, "Jonathan Gallimore" <jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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 < > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> 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 < > > matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk> 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 < > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> 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" <david.blev...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > > >
