Yes, that's fine (for now)! I'd prefer if this was cleared up before the first official release though (if necessary the code could be put on a branch if it's not being used).
Colm. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > Currently the 3rd party module is only used by the pki-provider, which > isn’t actually really used yet. Is this OK for you Colm? > > > > Regards, > > Kai > > > > *From:* Zheng, Kai > *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:39 PM > *To:* Apache Directory Developers List; '[email protected]' > *Subject:* RE: Kerby 3rdparty module > > > > Hi Colm, > > > > Could we delay on the action? Currently it’s still on early going to > support PKINIT, so it’s not clear to me yet how much we would need to > modify the 3rd party codes. Note the included one is a modified version > after much clean up. > > > > Regards, > > Kai > > > > *From:* Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:32 PM > *To:* Apache Directory Developers List > *Subject:* Kerby 3rdparty module > > > > Hi all, > > Currently we include not-yet-commons-ssl in the 3rdpart module in Kerby. > This is required for PKCS8 support in the kerby-provider module. However we > can just include the dependency (there is a servicemix bundle) here. Should > I just go ahead and remove the 3rdparty module, or there a compelling > reason to keep it? > > Colm. > > > > -- > > Colm O hEigeartaigh > > Talend Community Coder > http://coders.talend.com > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
