aren't there apache projects already dealing with public key formats?
cxf must have done a lot of work on that? would this just be a wrapper
to existing libs?
On 02/05/18 10:03, Jean-Louis Monteiro wrote:
PCS8 "standard" or not is probably the one to no miss
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <rdebussc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Primarily what I'd like to do is really nail the public key format
manipulation. I did a huge amount of research in this and would like to
come up with an extremely well tested library that can natively read all
the dominate file formats PKCS 1 & 5 PEM, JWK{S} and has command-line
tools
for converting between them.
That would be super awesome. I have been working on the same thing the past
month or so.
Rudy
On 2 May 2018 at 00:13, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
Requested a repo we could potentially use for this.
Primarily what I'd like to do is really nail the public key format
manipulation. I did a huge amount of research in this and would like to
come up with an extremely well tested library that can natively read all
the dominate file formats PKCS 1 & 5 PEM, JWK{S} and has command-line
tools
for converting between them.
This could be useful to both the TomEE and Geronimo MicroProfile JWT
impls.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:32 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
The code still is in a PR (#123) for the moment
I'm in to help.
Still some small fixes to do and I'd like MP-Config to be used to
configure
keys, issues, and others.
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Mark Struberg
<strub...@yahoo.de.invalid
wrote:
As noted elsewhere: the vote question was a mixture of 'what do you
think' (consensus -> majority vote) and 'is it ok' (technical ->
unanimous
vote).
I'd also be in favour to do the generic parts in Geronimo and only do
the
integration in TomEE. So yes, in a consensus vote I'd also vote -1. If
this
is interpreted as commit vote then I vote -0
The work is the same and as long as it's been done I'm fine either
ways.
Now that we did all the 3 weeks of rambling and discussions let's
focus
on
the important stuff.
Where is the code? Who did already work on it? Or do we again have 30
people discussing but just 2 working? ;)
LieGrue,strub
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018, 01:14:57 CEST, David Blevins <
david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
It was more as a "if im always the only one seeing tomee differently
i
can
leave to let you space". Not as a threat.
That's a generous sentiment. Either way the best outcome is that you
stay
and we all learn the lesson that disagreeing is ok and healthy. How
is
the
most important part.
Disagreement can be an incredibly productive and innovative thing if
done
right. By definition, that means this project is sitting on some
incredible innovative potential.
A concrete way I think we can measure ourselves is by the number of
people
who feel comfortable voting. I would consider a vote of 20 people
that
included 3 -1 votes to be significantly more healthy than a vote of 3
people and all +1s.
[...]
There is no veto at apache if you check rules closely. All is more
about
respect and overall consensus IIRC.
I want to be careful that we don't learn a false lesson as Apache does
have technical vetos. These are more meant for line-of-code level
input vs
community direction.
The intention of the two votes was to make the line a little more
clear.
- The first vote "Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support"
was
intended to flush out line-of-code level technical issues with the PR:
breaks the build; doesn't follow code style; introduces security
issues.
It's ultimately a Review-than-Commit vote and a -1 should be viewed
as a
technical veto.
- The second vote "Explore creating a reusable JWT Library" was
intended
to determine overall desire on what the next step should be. No
commit
being reviewed, more of a community level discussion. A -1 should not
be
viewed as a veto.
-David
