Re: MP-JWT progress
2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > >> >> >> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a >> écrit : >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> > >> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee >> >> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been >> created anywhere yet, is that right? >> >> >> Yes >> >> >> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating >> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something >> not branded tomee or geronimo. >> >> >> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no >> more a project delivery by itself. >> >> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? >> > > As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in > geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I > can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even > exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied > to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit. > > Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo? > As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee. > > >> >> >> >> -David >> >> >>
Re: [VOTE] Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support
+1 Andy. On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: Jean-Louis has put a PR up for discussion for JWT Support in TomEE. - https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123 There are 35 commits spanning 27 days of work. It's been reviewed by Andy and Rudy. One a committer and one a contributor, which is great for us. There's an open question as to where the code should live in its final state: TomEE or Geronimo. This conversation doesn't seem conclusive after 12 days. It's ok for us not to agree, but we should have more votes so there is a clear outcome and we are acting as a community to our best ability. Vote: Merge Pull Request 123? +1 Yes, let's do it +-0 Abstain -1 No, don't put this code in TomEE Out of respect for the conversation, this is not a vote of where the code will live in its final state. This is just a decision to merge or not. It would give the users something they can try, which can be updated by a future PR if the code does eventually move. -David -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: [VOTE] Explore creating a reusable JWT Library
+1. I'd like to see the code merged and evolve a little within the the TomEE context. It's relatively easy to discuss/extract reuse later, but I'd like to see TomEE move forward first. The same goes for the config PR from Roberto. Andy. On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: The vote for merging PR 123 does not address community will on what to do with the code beyond merging it. One can realistically vote +1 to merge the code, but then desire to see the code cleaned up and moved elsewhere. One can realistically desire seeing an attempt to clean up the code to find what is reusable and may wish to withhold a final decision until we see how fruitful such a module would be. Out of respect for people who may not know exactly how they feel (TomEE or Geronimo), this is a vote for the latter. Vote: Should we attempt to extract code from the JWT PR to see what is reusable and how successful such a jar would be? +1 Let's give it a shot here +-0 -1 Let's do this elsewhere If the vote is +1 to attempt an extraction of reusable code here, final conclusion of if that extraction is worth it or where it should live is not being voted on. People are welcome to decide differently based on the results of the exercise. -David -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the priority for TomEE. The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting can be addressed later. Andy. On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding. I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support. -David -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
2018-03-19 9:37 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht : > I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should > allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where things > should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves to block > any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after a week of > back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, as that is > the community we serve. The first response should be thank you, and we > should accept the help offered. Then those that want to worry about > extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do that if they feel > strongly enough about it. It should not be the priority for TomEE. > Well, this has been discussed N times and TomEE always has been the second choice. I am particularly unhappy it keeps coming back until it is TomEE which will just kill TomEE as a project IMHO and it kills the effort as well. > > The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If > that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we > should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting can > be addressed later. > This is actually what is done and as showed with MP-Config it works very well this way: 1. impl @G 2. integration @T (keep in mind tomee is an integration project and not an impl project otherwise we need to absorb cxf, activemp, openjpa, openwebbeans, batchee, johnzon, ...) This allows to use the projects in any CDI based application without having the drawback of being tomee dependent which is not required by any MP spec. > > Andy. > > > > On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: > >> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>> wrote: >>> >>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? >>> >> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this >> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't >> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE >> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has >> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions >> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to >> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding. >> >> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so >> people can move forward with clear support. >> >> >> -David >> >> >> > -- > Andy Gumbrecht > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > http://www.tomitribe.com > https://www.tomitribe.io > > > Ubique > >
Re: [VOTE] Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support
0 - i don't really know enough about it On 19/03/2018 01:02, David Blevins wrote: Jean-Louis has put a PR up for discussion for JWT Support in TomEE. - https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123 There are 35 commits spanning 27 days of work. It's been reviewed by Andy and Rudy. One a committer and one a contributor, which is great for us. There's an open question as to where the code should live in its final state: TomEE or Geronimo. This conversation doesn't seem conclusive after 12 days. It's ok for us not to agree, but we should have more votes so there is a clear outcome and we are acting as a community to our best ability. Vote: Merge Pull Request 123? +1 Yes, let's do it +-0 Abstain -1 No, don't put this code in TomEE Out of respect for the conversation, this is not a vote of where the code will live in its final state. This is just a decision to merge or not. It would give the users something they can try, which can be updated by a future PR if the code does eventually move. -David
Re: MP-JWT progress
@Anydy and @David Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still. For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat behaviour changes. But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects involved which just get consumed by TomEE: * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community. But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them. This is not a one way street. We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream projects as well. And the other way around. We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid base. LieGrue,strub On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the priority for TomEE. The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting can be addressed later. Andy. On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: >> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> >> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? > I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread > can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. > The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. > At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a > decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are > in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work > into inching closer to get a better view before deciding. > > I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people > can move forward with clear support. > > > -David > > -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote: @Anydy and @David Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still. For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat behaviour changes. But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects involved which just get consumed by TomEE: * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community. But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them. This is not a one way street. We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream projects as well. And the other way around. We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid base. LieGrue,strub On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the priority for TomEE. The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting can be addressed later. Andy. On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding. I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support. -David -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: [VOTE] Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support
I'm +1 to merge this, and allow the discussion about its ultimate home to continue. Jon On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:02 AM, David Blevins wrote: > Jean-Louis has put a PR up for discussion for JWT Support in TomEE. > > - https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123 > > There are 35 commits spanning 27 days of work. It's been reviewed by Andy > and Rudy. One a committer and one a contributor, which is great for us. > > There's an open question as to where the code should live in its final > state: TomEE or Geronimo. This conversation doesn't seem conclusive after > 12 days. It's ok for us not to agree, but we should have more votes so > there is a clear outcome and we are acting as a community to our best > ability. > > Vote: Merge Pull Request 123? > > +1 Yes, let's do it > +-0 Abstain > -1 No, don't put this code in TomEE > > > Out of respect for the conversation, this is not a vote of where the code > will live in its final state. This is just a decision to merge or not. It > would give the users something they can try, which can be updated by a > future PR if the code does eventually move. > > > -David > >
Re: MP-JWT progress
2018-03-19 11:04 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht : > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. you describe ASF here ;) However it is also important to not shout in our own foot and this is what I try to do ensure we do having a single umbrella project. Goal is not to prevent TomEE to be "free" but really to make its community stronger and consistent accross ASF and users. A random example is: if we end up having geronimo-jwt-auth and tomee-jwt-auth then what end users will use? How will tomee be perceived in ASF ecosystem? We always managed to have a strong and consistent ecosystem and it is what I'm trying to promote with my warning on creating a jwt-auth @tomee which would split the efforts. If the issue is the committership then this is something quickly fixes with the contributions at asf so this must not be a blocker for the choice today. People at tomee are great and a lot are worth having G committership once passed the entering bar which is valuable contributions as on any asf project. No reason it doesn't happen. > > > > On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> @Anydy and @David >> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love >> it - but still. >> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I >> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for >> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat >> behaviour changes. >> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other >> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects >> involved which just get consumed by TomEE: >> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces >> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE >> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * >> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs >> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the >> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community. >> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work >> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR >> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them. >> >> This is not a one way street. >> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE >> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream >> projects as well. And the other way around. >> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge >> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid >> base. >> >> LieGrue,strub >> >> >> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht < >> agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should >> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where >> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves >> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after >> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, >> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank >> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to >> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do >> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the >> priority for TomEE. >> >> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If >> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we >> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting >> can be addressed later. >> >> Andy. >> >> >> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? >>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this >>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't >>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE >>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has >>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions >>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to >>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding. >>> >>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so >>> people can move forward with clear support. >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> > -- > Andy Gumbrecht > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > http://www.tomitribe.com > https://www.tomitribe.io > > > Ubique > >
Re: [VOTE] Explore creating a reusable JWT Library
What's the other vote ("Geronimo one")?
Jon
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Hey David,
>
> How does this vote relates to the geronimo one you launched?
>
> Are they purely concurrent or can they be conditional one for the other?
>
>
> Le 19 mars 2018 01:03, "David Blevins" a écrit :
>
> > The vote for merging PR 123 does not address community will on what to do
> > with the code beyond merging it. One can realistically vote +1 to merge
> > the code, but then desire to see the code cleaned up and moved elsewhere.
> > One can realistically desire seeing an attempt to clean up the code to
> find
> > what is reusable and may wish to withhold a final decision until we see
> how
> > fruitful such a module would be.
> >
> > Out of respect for people who may not know exactly how they feel (TomEE
> or
> > Geronimo), this is a vote for the latter.
> >
> > Vote: Should we attempt to extract code from the JWT PR to see what is
> > reusable and how successful such a jar would be?
> >
> > +1 Let's give it a shot here
> > +-0
> > -1 Let's do this elsewhere
> >
> > If the vote is +1 to attempt an extraction of reusable code here, final
> > conclusion of if that extraction is worth it or where it should live is
> not
> > being voted on. People are welcome to decide differently based on the
> > results of the exercise.
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it did a while back (ok, 10 years back - has it really been that long...?) for an Eclipse plugin. I think we need a safe place where experimentation can happen and code can be committed and worked on (that isn't just a PR). A number of things in the old sandbox have moved onto other places. If I sent a PR and it was whisked away to Geronimo, my immediate issue would be that I don't have commit access there, so I'm then restricted to sending in PRs. Jon On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. > > > > On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> @Anydy and @David >> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love >> it - but still. >> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I >> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for >> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat >> behaviour changes. >> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other >> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects >> involved which just get consumed by TomEE: >> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces >> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE >> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * >> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs >> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the >> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community. >> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work >> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR >> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them. >> >> This is not a one way street. >> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE >> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream >> projects as well. And the other way around. >> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge >> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid >> base. >> >> LieGrue,strub >> >> >> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht < >> agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should >> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where >> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves >> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after >> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, >> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank >> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to >> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do >> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the >> priority for TomEE. >> >> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If >> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we >> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting >> can be addressed later. >> >> Andy. >> >> >> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? >>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this >>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't >>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE >>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has >>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions >>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to >>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding. >>> >>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so >>> people can move forward with clear support. >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> > -- > Andy Gumbrecht > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > http://www.tomitribe.com > https://www.tomitribe.io > > > Ubique > >
Re: MP-JWT progress
No nees to ask to move vode over sandbox, great idea Jon. Le 19 mars 2018 12:10, "Jonathan Gallimore" a écrit : > We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with > different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it did > a > while back (ok, 10 years back - has it really been that long...?) for an > Eclipse plugin. I think we need a safe place where experimentation can > happen and code can be committed and worked on (that isn't just a PR). A > number of things in the old sandbox have moved onto other places. > > If I sent a PR and it was whisked away to Geronimo, my immediate issue > would be that I don't have commit access there, so I'm then restricted to > sending in PRs. > > Jon > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Andy Gumbrecht > > wrote: > > > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people > > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do > so. > > > > > > > > On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > >> @Anydy and @David > >> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love > >> it - but still. > >> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I > >> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for > >> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat > >> behaviour changes. > >> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other > >> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects > >> involved which just get consumed by TomEE: > >> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces > >> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE > >> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * > >> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs > >> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the > >> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community. > >> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the > work > >> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR > >> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace > them. > >> > >> This is not a one way street. > >> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE > >> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the > downstream > >> projects as well. And the other way around. > >> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge > >> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid > >> base. > >> > >> LieGrue,strub > >> > >> > >> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht < > >> agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > >> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we > should > >> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where > >> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves > >> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after > >> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, > >> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank > >> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to > >> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do > >> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the > >> priority for TomEE. > >> > >> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If > >> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we > >> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting > >> can be addressed later. > >> > >> Andy. > >> > >> > >> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: > >> > >>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > wrote: > > Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? > > >>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this > >>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't > >>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning > TomEE > >>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has > >>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have > opinions > >>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting > to > >>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding. > >>> > >>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so > >>> people can move forward with clear support. > >>> > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> > > -- > > Andy Gumbrecht > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > https://www.tomitribe.io > > > > > > Ubique > > > > >
Git repos for sandbox and openejb-eclipse-plugin
Hi As discussed here: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/MP-JWT-progress-tp4683480p4683612.html I'd like migrate our old SVN sandbox to a git repository. I've also had someone ping me (not on the mailing list) asking for the OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin - I'd therefore like to bring it up to date and have a Git repository for that too. Does anyone object? If not, I'll create tomee-sandbox and tomee-eclipse-plugin and migrate those over. Thanks Jon
Re: MP-JWT progress
Thanks for the reply. I've split that out into a separate thread so it doesn't hijack this one and will just give people space to object / discuss, and then I'll move that over. Jon On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > No nees to ask to move vode over sandbox, great idea Jon. > > Le 19 mars 2018 12:10, "Jonathan Gallimore" > a écrit : > > > We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with > > different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it > did > > a > > while back (ok, 10 years back - has it really been that long...?) for an > > Eclipse plugin. I think we need a safe place where experimentation can > > happen and code can be committed and worked on (that isn't just a PR). A > > number of things in the old sandbox have moved onto other places. > > > > If I sent a PR and it was whisked away to Geronimo, my immediate issue > > would be that I don't have commit access there, so I'm then restricted to > > sending in PRs. > > > > Jon > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Andy Gumbrecht < > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where > people > > > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do > > so. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > > >> @Anydy and @David > > >> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really > love > > >> it - but still. > > >> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs > I > > >> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades > for > > >> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat > > >> behaviour changes. > > >> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other > > >> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects > > >> involved which just get consumed by TomEE: > > >> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces > > >> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE > > >> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * > > >> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs > > >> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the > > >> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community. > > >> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the > > work > > >> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done > FOR > > >> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace > > them. > > >> > > >> This is not a one way street. > > >> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out > TomEE > > >> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the > > downstream > > >> projects as well. And the other way around. > > >> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a > huge > > >> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock > solid > > >> base. > > >> > > >> LieGrue,strub > > >> > > >> > > >> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht < > > >> agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > >> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we > > should > > >> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where > > >> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just > serves > > >> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly > after > > >> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be > TomEE, > > >> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank > > >> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to > > >> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do > > >> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the > > >> priority for TomEE. > > >> > > >> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. > If > > >> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we > > >> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need > back-porting > > >> can be addressed later. > > >> > > >> Andy. > > >> > > >> > > >> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? > > > > >>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this > > >>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that > weren't > > >>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning > > TomEE > > >>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has > > >>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have > > opinions > > >>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as > wanting > > to > > >>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before decid
Re: Git repos for sandbox and openejb-eclipse-plugin
+1 Side questions: 1. did we already try contributing to wtp? 2. How to expose an update site at asf? Le 19 mars 2018 13:19, "Jonathan Gallimore" a écrit : > Hi > > As discussed here: > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/MP-JWT-progress- > tp4683480p4683612.html > > I'd like migrate our old SVN sandbox to a git repository. > > I've also had someone ping me (not on the mailing list) asking for the > OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin - I'd therefore like to bring it up to date and have > a Git repository for that too. > > Does anyone object? If not, I'll create tomee-sandbox and > tomee-eclipse-plugin and migrate those over. > > Thanks > > Jon >
Re: Git repos for sandbox and openejb-eclipse-plugin
+1 Le 19 mars 2018 13:26, "Romain Manni-Bucau" a écrit : +1 Side questions: 1. did we already try contributing to wtp? 2. How to expose an update site at asf? Le 19 mars 2018 13:19, "Jonathan Gallimore" a écrit : > Hi > > As discussed here: > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/MP-JWT-progress- > tp4683480p4683612.html > > I'd like migrate our old SVN sandbox to a git repository. > > I've also had someone ping me (not on the mailing list) asking for the > OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin - I'd therefore like to bring it up to date and have > a Git repository for that too. > > Does anyone object? If not, I'll create tomee-sandbox and > tomee-eclipse-plugin and migrate those over. > > Thanks > > Jon >
Re: Git repos for sandbox and openejb-eclipse-plugin
1. We haven't. WTP functionality makes up about 50% of the plugin. It could be that the other 50% is no use to anyone, although it did have some users in the past. I'd like to at least work on it, and I'm ok if that is back in the sandbox. If that then moves to WTP, because that's best in the long run, that is cool with me. 2. I can't remember the mechanics of it, but we did manage it at one point - effectively the update site is an extracted zip, and that zip is a voted-upon artifact. Cheers Jon On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > +1 > > Side questions: > > 1. did we already try contributing to wtp? > 2. How to expose an update site at asf? > > Le 19 mars 2018 13:19, "Jonathan Gallimore" > a écrit : > > > Hi > > > > As discussed here: > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/MP-JWT-progress- > > tp4683480p4683612.html > > > > I'd like migrate our old SVN sandbox to a git repository. > > > > I've also had someone ping me (not on the mailing list) asking for the > > OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin - I'd therefore like to bring it up to date and > have > > a Git repository for that too. > > > > Does anyone object? If not, I'll create tomee-sandbox and > > tomee-eclipse-plugin and migrate those over. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jon > > >
Re: Git repos for sandbox and openejb-eclipse-plugin
+1 go for it! On 19/03/18 13:19, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: Hi As discussed here: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/MP-JWT-progress-tp4683480p4683612.html I'd like migrate our old SVN sandbox to a git repository. I've also had someone ping me (not on the mailing list) asking for the OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin - I'd therefore like to bring it up to date and have a Git repository for that too. Does anyone object? If not, I'll create tomee-sandbox and tomee-eclipse-plugin and migrate those over. Thanks Jon -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: Git repos for sandbox and openejb-eclipse-plugin
2018-03-19 14:48 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore : > 1. We haven't. WTP functionality makes up about 50% of the plugin. It could > be that the other 50% is no use to anyone, although it did have some users > in the past. I'd like to at least work on it, and I'm ok if that is back in > the sandbox. If that then moves to WTP, because that's best in the long > run, that is cool with me. > Let's do it this way then (tomee then propose @wtp) rather than the opposite since we have no entry point yet and are in minority for now. Can be interesting to compete the idea integration which is promoted as complete but not as much as your plugin ;). > > 2. I can't remember the mechanics of it, but we did manage it at one point > - effectively the update site is an extracted zip, and that zip is a > voted-upon artifact. > I thought - can be wrong - it was using svn which is now highly not encouraged but anyway if we can make it it would ease the usage (but can be done after a few releases). > > Cheers > > Jon > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Side questions: > > > > 1. did we already try contributing to wtp? > > 2. How to expose an update site at asf? > > > > Le 19 mars 2018 13:19, "Jonathan Gallimore" < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> > > a écrit : > > > > > Hi > > > > > > As discussed here: > > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/MP-JWT-progress- > > > tp4683480p4683612.html > > > > > > I'd like migrate our old SVN sandbox to a git repository. > > > > > > I've also had someone ping me (not on the mailing list) asking for the > > > OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin - I'd therefore like to bring it up to date and > > have > > > a Git repository for that too. > > > > > > Does anyone object? If not, I'll create tomee-sandbox and > > > tomee-eclipse-plugin and migrate those over. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Jon > > > > > >
Re: MP-JWT progress
On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE. And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not in TomEE. Got me? You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak' OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up and the code is now much easier to maintain. The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And in the long term it adds maintenance costs. I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not. Will try to catch up in the next few days. LieGrue,strub
Re: MP-JWT progress
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a >>> écrit : >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee >>> >>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have >>> been created anywhere yet, is that right? >>> >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> >>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating >>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something >>> not branded tomee or geronimo. >>> >>> >>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no >>> more a project delivery by itself. >>> >>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? >>> >> >> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in >> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I >> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even >> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied >> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit. >> >> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo? >> > > As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no > reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee. > Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to say. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> >
Re: MP-JWT progress
Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put in tomee codebase. Hope it is clearer this time. Le 19 mars 2018 18:54, "John D. Ament" a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > > 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > > > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a > >>> écrit : > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee > >>> > >>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have > >>> been created anywhere yet, is that right? > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes > >>> > >>> > >>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating > >>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? > Something > >>> not branded tomee or geronimo. > >>> > >>> > >>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, > no > >>> more a project delivery by itself. > >>> > >>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? > >>> > >> > >> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in > >> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far > as I > >> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code > even > >> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely > tied > >> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit. > >> > >> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo? > >> > > > > As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no > > reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee. > > > > > Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to > say. > > > > > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
Re: MP-JWT progress
Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-) On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE. And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not in TomEE. Got me? You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak' OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up and the code is now much easier to maintain. The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And in the long term it adds maintenance costs. I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not. Will try to catch up in the next few days. LieGrue,strub -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having something tomee independent in the back of your head please! It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move things over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid duplications if possible. > Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put in > tomee codebase Being french I assume you don't mean 'must not' but rather 'doesn't need to' or rather 'should not', isn't? Of course people _can_ put it into TomEE. It's just that it doesn't make the most sense from an ASF wide approach. That doesn't mean that it's not allowed. LieGrue,strub On Monday, 19 March 2018, 21:46:17 CET, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-) On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote: > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht > wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the >world, but somewhere where people >> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. > No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE of > course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem then we > should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE. And if we > hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not in TomEE. Got > me? > > You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak' OWB. > And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up and the > code is now much easier to maintain. > The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF commiters > are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they belong to. > Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a workaround in > TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And in the long term > it adds maintenance costs. > > I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I > cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not. Will > try to catch up in the next few days. > LieGrue,strub > > -- Andy Gumbrecht https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe http://www.tomitribe.com https://www.tomitribe.io Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
Used most to be explicit and my meaning but your wording is more correct. Le 19 mars 2018 22:46, "Mark Struberg" a écrit : > heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having > something tomee independent in the back of your head please! > It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move things > over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid duplications > if possible. > > Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put > in tomee codebase > Being french I assume you don't mean 'must not' but rather 'doesn't need > to' or rather 'should not', isn't? > Of course people _can_ put it into TomEE. It's just that it doesn't make > the most sense from an ASF wide approach. That doesn't mean that it's not > allowed. > > LieGrue,strub > > > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 21:46:17 CET, Andy Gumbrecht < > agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just > don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if > required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the > ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-) > > > On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > >On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht < > agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of > the world, but somewhere where people > >> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do > so. > > No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE > of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem > then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE. > And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not > in TomEE. Got me? > > > > You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak' > OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up > and the code is now much easier to maintain. > > The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF > commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they > belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a > workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And > in the long term it adds maintenance costs. > > > > I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I > cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not. > Will try to catch up in the next few days. > > LieGrue,strub > > > > > > -- > Andy Gumbrecht > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > http://www.tomitribe.com > https://www.tomitribe.io > > > Ubique > >
