On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:08 PM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:11 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:26 AM, <sl...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> Author: slaws >>>>> Date: Tue Jul 5 08:26:12 2011 >>>>> New Revision: 1142920 >>>>> >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1142920&view=rev >>>>> Log: >>>>> Re-enable Rampart support in the ws binding so that WS policy can be >>>>> applied. Add a test which, for the time being, demonstrates integrity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How hard would it be to change this to be a separate optional module >>>> so that if you don't need to use ws security then you don't need to >>>> include all the extra jars this brings in? >>>> >>>> ...ant >>>> >>> >>> I think that could be straightforward. I split out the code that loads >>> Rampart but it still sits in the axis integration class inside the ws >>> binding modules. Hence the dependencies. . We could put that code in >>> a separate module and we'd have to move the WSPolicy model there as >>> well. The question would be then how/when rampart gets engaged. >>> Possibly we could put it in the policy provider and add a check to >>> only engage it if it's not already engaged. We'd have to try it and >>> see if the timing works. >>> >>> Simon >>> >> >> Are you going to do this or are you just talking about it as a >> hypothetical thing for the future? >> >> ...ant >> > > Just talking about it at the moment. Still mulling over whether having > a separate module is a good idea or not. >
Hows this coming? I'd really prefer security to be a separate module. I spent a lot of time cleaning up the Axis2 bindings dependencies and had them down to just a small handful of jars, but this adds back a whole bunch more jars and trebles the size of the dependencies. ...ant
