I have built and reviewed this PR. We should merge it. The master is broken anyway because we need to update the rest-client api version.
Are we ok to merge it and continue the work on master? -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:25 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> >> > 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 >> <[email protected] >> >>> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> 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 >> >> <[email protected]> >> >>> 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 >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
