Hi Matthew, No, technicall there are a lot of small things to do before it can be "included" but the main blocker for me is that the exact same project is created at geronimo (actually this code was designed to be owned by geronimo and the artifact imported in tomee). Since G will have it I would like to avoid to have to maintain 2 versions of the "same" code, it already proved being a failure promise multiple times so it is more a management reason than a technical one since the spec is pretty trivial.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book 2018-04-11 14:54 GMT+02:00 Matthew Broadhead <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>: > Hi David, > > Thanks for the invitation to vote. I don't want to vote because I am not > sure I have enough knowledge to be able to do so. > > My gut feeling would probably be to side with Mark and Romain as they have > been very supportive with my queries about TomEE and they have shown deep > technical knowledge about the inner workings. > > On the other hand I don't want to dismiss the excellent effort others are > making on the JWT issue. However as long as the code is reusable and finds > a home it will not be wasted. > > I am still interested to know what Mark and Romain are looking for before > they accept it into the project. Does it need to have proven track record > and reliability? It is a security plugin after all... > > Matthew > > > On 10/04/2018 05:23, David Blevins wrote: >> >> Officially closing the vote. Thanks for the patience everyone. As >> mentioned in the other vote, this one needed some good discussion and a bit >> of extra time. >> >> +1s >> Andy Gumbrecht >> David Blevins >> Ivan Junckes Filho >> Jean-Louis Monteiro >> Jonathan Gallimore >> Thiago Veronezi >> >> +0 >> Rudy De Busscher >> >> -1s >> Mark Struberg >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> This was intended as a non-technical vote, so I've registered Mark's -1 as >> he intended it. Thanks, Mark, for the clarification. Matthew, you didn't >> vote, your participation was quite high -- thank you! You're more then >> welcome to vote, sir :) >> >> This was a consensus vote to see if there was will keep working on the JWT >> code here and see if it could be made reusable. We didn't really need this >> vote to accomplish anything other than to see where people's heads are at >> and make sure we're communicating with each other clearly. >> >> It does seem over all that the desire is to take a couple more steps. >> This vote did not address where the code should live in its final state. We >> don't really know how reusable anything will be. >> >> I'd probably expect us to take a few more steps, see how things look and >> come back to the "where" topic. >> >> >> -David >> >> >>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 5:02 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >
