I believe as we are really Spring based spring-security sounds a good option :-)
On 14 April 2014 19:34, Eric Barboni <[email protected]> wrote: > 1.6 fallback is enough for me (for now) > But If it's time to move to new tech or framework, I'm seriously out of > knowledge (or rationale) on where to go. > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Brett Porter [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Brett Porter > Envoyé : vendredi 11 avril 2014 03:02 > À : [email protected] > Objet : Re: Redback core issue with jdk 1.7 as prerequisite > > > On 11 Apr 2014, at 10:03 am, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> So we use a pretty old jpox stack which do bytecode enhancement with bcel. >> This generate bad bytecode when compiling with 1.7 (if compiler target >> 1.7) >> >> Solutions I have in mind: >> * stay as today not having 1.7 as prerequisite for redback core >> (that's what I just did) (compiler target/source 1.6) > > Seems the best immediate solution. > >> * moving to a new technology (openjpa?) >> >> Regarding the last option, does it mean reusing same database model or >> using a new one but with a data migration tooling? >> >> Thoughts? > > If you're going to do that amount of work, I think it's worth seriously > considering if another framework (Shiro, Spring Security) might better fit > the needs, and either replace Redback or reduce it down to things on top of > that. But I'm not volunteering :) > > - Brett > > -- Olivier Lamy Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
