I agree, and I don't think that is quite decided yet. I'm fairly agnostic on the "where", but I don't think it should stay in a PR.
It's early days, and it could potentially move at different points in the future. TomEE has changed a fair bit since my first contribution in 2007 :). I think we need to make sure we're enabling everyone to keep working and collaborating. Jon On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 23:03 Matthew Broadhead, < matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote: > i would like JWT support but it has to be done right. is the plan to > place it as a sub project under the TomEE umbrella? is the project > going to have a future as an independent module which can be reused in G > etc? > > On 29/03/2018 23:18, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: > > I suspect some of this is aimed at me. I'd be fine to send PRs and earn > > committer status through meritocracy. To be clear, I'm not blocking this > > being merged in TomEE or Geronimo. Your -1 vetoes it being merged into > > TomEE. > > > > I appreciate your reply to my question about the changes you'd like to > the > > JWT work. They sound like good suggestions, and as long as there is open > > discussion and collaboration on the appropriate list, I'm ok with it. I > > don't think they should block a merge as work can continue after the > merge. > > > > Your comment "As soon as you imported the lib in G, I will make sure to > > help to make it > > releasable.", coupled with me asking twice what that meant, sounded like > > it was going to be immediately changed and released potentially without > > much discussion as soon as it lands in Geronimo. > > > > I'm not committer on Geronimo - if I implemented part of MP and it winds > up > > there, my hope is that the Geronimo community would help and enable me to > > contribute further and ultimately become a committee, just as OpenEJB did > > 10 years ago. > > > > So just to be clear, I'm not blocking / vetoing anything, and I encourage > > this to be merged somewhere and open collaboration to continue wherever > it > > ends up. > > > > Jon > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 21:49 Romain Manni-Bucau, <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Globally that is it. You explained a lot why geronimo failed and not > sure > >> why tomee is kind of taking the same path - well actually cause of > "perms > >> lack" fear from what I read. This is not a safe reason (+not that > relevant > >> @asf thanks to the meritocracy) and Id prefer to keep "us" being unite > as > >> we have been 7 years ago instead of just going on different paths cause > of > >> a fears. > >> > >> > >> > >> Le 29 mars 2018 21:57, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> > >>> On Mar 29, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> Le 29 mars 2018 20:49, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a > >> écrit : > >>> > >>>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 8:53 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 6:29 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> Is your -1 on the basis that the code must be moved to Geronimo? > >>>> That + the fact tomee is not and shouldnt become a put it all project > >> just > >>>> become of scm perms IMO but stay an integration project to keep sense > >> and > >>>> not mess up its own image and mess up the quality of our reusable > libs. > >>>> Do you see this as a one-time situation or do you intend to vote the > >> same > >>>> way on any future MicroProfile implementation work in TomEE? > >>>> > >>>> For example, should work be started to implement MicroProfile > >> OpenTracing > >>>> in TomEE, would that PR be -1 on the basis the implementation should > be > >> in > >>>> Geronimo? > >>> Being said it will be in G anyway since that is half of G definition > >> since > >>> some months now (since server has been dropped), I ll do my best to > keep > >> it > >>> consistent in our small ecosystem and do the same to have strong > reusable > >>> libs since there is no technical blockers @MP to have it and a strong > >>> integration solution (tomee) and not a mess with an in between state. > >> I'm reading that as a yes that you would -1 future MP implementation > work > >> in TomEE on the basis it should live in Geronimo, but you hope it > doesn't > >> come to that and will do your best to create good implementations in > >> Geronimo so it isn't necessary. > >> > >> If I misunderstood, please clarify. > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >
