What kind of priority does OAuth support have? I see there is an issue for it: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-119. I'd like to see Shiro support it sooner than later, but then again, I wouldn't want to hold up the release for it. Is it just a wish for someday, or is it actually a planned feature?
Tauren On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]>wrote: > Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of > SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be > important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the > release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably > have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently > scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the > release if not. > > Kalle > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to > > see if we can resolve: > > > > - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair > > from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change > > to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the > > Subject context map. > > - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish > > - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0 > release. > > > > I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0 > > release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or > > whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service > > the community's needs. > > > > We're definitely close! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Les > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few > >> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do > >> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at > >> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing > >> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much > >> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the > >> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and > >> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and > >> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you > >> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them > >> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues > >> currently scheduled for 1.0 > >> ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078 > ) > >> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule > >> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise > >> ready for 1.0.0. Agree? > >> > >> Kalle > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> Done. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Alan > >>>> > >>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Les > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera < > [email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received > stipulations > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good > here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Alan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend > created > >>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us > in > >>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is > >>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work, > the > >>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that > we > >>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual > property > >>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but > I > >>>>>>> think we're ok. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Les > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood < > [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the > old > >>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also > >>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Les > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers > in the > >>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of > is > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project > >>>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Alan > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear > record of > >>>>>>>>>> it? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Les > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera > >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from > JSecurity > >>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> Alan > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to > >>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the > >>>>>>>>>>>> incubator, > >>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> HTH, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Les > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project > >>>>>>>>>>>>> members. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> original > >>>>>>>>>>>>> project. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig > helped > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all > previous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring > all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else > that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> done? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree > that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to > take a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues > that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, > I'd > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but > I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what > should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as > possible > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing > issues. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. > I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
