aldettinger commented on issue #9342: URL: https://github.com/apache/camel-quarkus/issues/9342#issuecomment-6216881572
@jamesnetherton Many thanks for constructive insights 👍 > Do we actually know whether the non-http transports work with our extensions? I forget how everything works but maybe having the http transport as a explicit dependency was a deliberate choice. This is the central question, quarkus looks to be designed that way. And if the camel abstractions matches their intent to be transport agnostic, then it should be fine. This also raises the question of having non transport related itests or the opposite having itests for each transports. If I remember well, there is a kind of quarkus-mcp-server-core-helper or alike. > Also FWIW - I think the CVE impact is overstated. If there's a CVE anywhere in quarkus-mcp-server, the project will get updated for us in the Quarkus Platforn. It wouldn't require CQ to release (unless there was some kind of major breaking change). A CVE related to quarkus-mcp-server-core would make us bound to analyze impact in cq while probably a quarkus-mcp-server-* transport CVE would not ? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
