Hi Stepan, FYI there are other modules that contain providers, "jndi" for example. The JNDI DNS provider is currently located there. If someone will decide to implement some other JNDI provider we will need to decide where should we put it. IMHO it is not a very good idea to keep different types of providers (jndi and security here) at one place.
Regards, 2006/7/24, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
IMO, it is not a big issue. We may create one module for all providers (like 'tools' module) and building 'providers' module will produce a set of required jars. Thanks, Stepan. On 7/24/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > If we create separate module for each provider then number of modules is > going > to be too big... (e.g. RI has 6 or 7 providers) > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/7/24, Stepan Mishura : > > On 7/19/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > > > > A long ago we agreed that providers go into a separate module. But > > > now I think it's might be not very reasonable. > > > > > > Hi Mikhail, > > > > Why you think that is not reasonable? > > > > Here is the initial proposal: > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Thanks, > > Stepan. > > > > Sun keeps certificates in its own proprietary format (JKS), while we > have > > > BKS from Bouncy Castle, so files will have to be converted. I can do > this > > > next week > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mikhail > > > > > > 2006/7/19, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim Ellison wrote: > > > > > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > > > >> I'm integrating HARMONY-536, the JSSE provider. Two things: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1) it's contributed to go into x-net, but the package namespace > is > > > > >> > > > > >> o.a.h.security.provider.jsse > > > > >> > > > > >> so I wonder if this would be better off in the security > module. If > > > not, > > > > >> we are stuck because we don't have a 'negative' patternset for > jar > > > > >> packaging, so it's getting sucked into security jar right now > anyway > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > IMHO it should be in x-net. Can't you rename the package? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course. Something was going to get moved, just wanted to see any > > > > other opinions.. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2) I have a little test proggie that shows that it's negotiating > w/ > > > the > > > > >> other side, but given we have no cacerts, it whines and gives up. > > > (It's > > > > >> a reasonable whine...) Lazily and naively, I threw the cacerts > from > > > > >> Sun's JRE into jre/lib/security and prayed, but the security > deities > > > are > > > > >> not smiling on me today. So, where does/what format/etc/etc > should > > > our > > > > >> root cert file go? > > > > > > > > > > Dunno. I know you were just playing, but AIUI the use of root > > > > > certificates for popular CA's cost $'s don't they? > > > > > > > > I didn't think so. I thought that they gave the root certs away > because > > > > the value of a cert provider is directly proportional to the amount > of > > > > software out there that can understand it's certs... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully Boris will enlighten us to the format used. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Tim > > -- Thanks, Stepan Mishura Intel Middleware Products Division ------------------------------------------------------ Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
