Ok, then I'll checkout your PR and build it locally -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:07 PM Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > We already released a TomEE 8 M1 with MP 1.3 support. > > And in reality, MP 2.x is the one we should be targeting with TomEE 8, > since we have CDI 2.0. > > > On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:49, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana < > osant...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > > > JL, I like baby steps. > > Maybe, keep MP 1.3, release a TomEE 8 RC-2, then upgrade the version to > MP > > 2.0. > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:40 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Let's revive this discussion ... > >> > >> We are working on build stability (see other thread). > >> I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API we > >> pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant. > >> > >> Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as > opposed > >> to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a > >> NoSuchMethodException. > >> > >> So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)? > >> Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else? > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez > <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid > >>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good question. > >>> > >>> I think the community could help with the following topics: > >>> > >>> - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the > >>> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out. > >>> > >>> - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might > >> be > >>> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what > >> is > >>> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT > >>> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both > >>> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are > >>> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go > >> out > >>> there to find them. > >>> > >>> - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t > >>> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good > candidates. > >>> > >>> - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our > >> main > >>> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant > >> (or > >>> 2.x for that matter). > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Roberto > >>> > >>>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> How can people help? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> David Blevins > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez > >> <radcor...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0: > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 < > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212> > >>>>> > >>>>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be > >>> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some > >>> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a > look > >>> into it as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Roberto > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
