I would agree with Geoff on the auth. I think it would be nice to move to JWT for 1.0.
I would also point out the Brooklyn website. I'm the one to blame on this, I redesigned the home page but not the rest (mostly due to the currently complexity of it) I'll send a proposal on this today. Best. On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 17:57 Geoff Macartney <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 with observation that there are still some things we might want to do > before making that 1.0 release. (In re. Richard's comment about "Are we > feature complete", you may think we are not.) > > For example something I think it would be good to do before announcing a > 1.0 is to get away from basic auth on the UI and REST API and having a > session token based approach, perhaps based on JWT tokens. (Don't like > storing the auth credentials for the CLI) > > That's one example but you may have your own suggestions - shout out! > > Geoff > > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:41 Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 with conditions :-) > > > > Yes, I'd like to see Apache Brooklyn 1.0 released. I'd suggest that we > > would get ASF PR involved to generate a bit of buzz around this, and > > possibly approach some of our commercial users and friends to chip in > with > > some PR too. > > > > But going to 1.0 (and generating some media buzz around it) brings > > responsibilities. If the media buzz brings in new users, we want to make > > sure our usability is as high as possible - this covers the app itself, > as > > well as the website and the documentation. > > > > So to answer your question with some more questions... > > > > Are we feature-complete? > > > > Do we have great usability? Good user stories for all our types of users? > > > > Are we happy to freeze our API in its current state? > > > > Are we happy to accept a stricter deprecation policy going forward? > > > > Is there nothing that we want to deprecate before 1.0? (That would imply > > another 0.x release cycle) > > > > Have we removed every deprecated thing that we can? (If something is > > deprecated but cannot be removed, why?) > > > > Do we have great documentation? > > > > Do we have a great website? > > > > Does our documentation and examples reflect the "best" (not deprecated, > > outdated or suboptimal) way of doing things? > > > > Will the blueprints in the wider community be compatible with the > proposed > > 1.0 release or do they need updating? (We will need to work with those > > blueprint owners to get the blueprints updated.) > > > > Are we prepared to personally get involved in a media and visibility > push? > > (e.g. using our own Twitter, networks, getting more people involved in > > managing the official Apache Brooklyn social media channels, etc.) > > > > Are we prepared - in the event of a successful media blitz - to handle > more > > users coming to this list, IRC, Twitter etc. looking for help? > > > > > > If we can answer "yes" to all of these questions, then we are ready to > > release 1.0. If any of these questions is answered "no" or "maybe" then > we > > should wait, or consider making a 0.13.0 release first. > > > > Richard. > > > > > > On 3 October 2017 at 16:33, Duncan Godwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Following the release last week of Apache Brooklyn 0.12.0 I propose > that > > we > > > make the next version of Apache Brooklyn 1.0.0. > > > > > > Apache Brooklyn is robust, stable, feature rich and being used in > > > production by multiple enterprises. Our deprecation policy means we > > haven't > > > treated it like a 0.x release in a very long time. > > > > > > With 0.12.0, we did the last major thing needed before a 1.0 release: > we > > > switched to Karaf as the primary distribution and we deprecated the > > > "classic mode". What does everyone think? > > > > > > Many thanks > > > > > > Duncan > > > > > > -- Thomas Bouron • Senior Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation • https://cloudsoft.io/ Github: https://github.com/tbouron Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
