+1 go ahead. Happy to help! LieGrue, Strub
> Am 05.09.2017 um 01:56 schrieb John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > Gah zombie thread. > > So I want to pick back up at least with fault tolerance. Would anyone be > opposed to starting up a repo on it? I'm thinking of the name "Safeguard" so > that it would either be "org.apache.safeguard" or > "org.apache.geronimo.safeguard" as group id in maven (xbean uses the former, > config the latter). > > I've given it a bit more thought as well. While I'm cautious about > Failsafe's future, its something where we can start off as a dependency and > grow and replace, or look to get a grant or just import the source code > leaving the original headers if need be. > > I do have a preference to create this as a git repo. > > John > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:45 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would love implementing the mp jwt spec at Geronimo. >> But I've not closely followed the discussions and current state. >> So I cannot really make an educated guess right now about whether it already >> makes sense to implement it. >> >> Although I think it cannot be wrong to start tinkering with it in a seperate >> component. >> And then we know a lot better what it is able to and what not. >> This is not yet a guarantee that we release anything in that direction. >> But by playing with it we don't loose anything. An the worst case we learn a >> lot ;) >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> > Am 30.07.2017 um 23:58 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: >> > >> > >> > >> > Le 30 juil. 2017 23:54, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:44 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > Is there any actual spec? >> > >> > Not sure what you mean. Rhetorical question? >> > >> > No no, for now MP is a lot of marketing - server part is nothing for >> > instance. If no spec but future specs I d wait it is close to release. >> > >> > >> > >> > For jwt we can impl from scratch, it is not hard and would avoid a big >> > dep and enable some consistency using jsonb. >> > >> > JWT is a lot more complicated than that. It's more than reading the JSON, >> > but also ensuring proper crypto signatures, on the generation and >> > consumption side. You need to be able to reach out to other servers to >> > fetch keys and handle extra validation checks. There's a standard set of >> > claims that's being requested as well. Yes, the json smart dependency >> > bites, maybe we can convince the author to switch to the javax.json >> > namespace? >> > >> > It is trivial to impl on java once you have json link, ~200 lines for the >> > needed part. Javax.json is maybe not rigyt bit building on it sounds right >> > - actually did on johnzon with quite successes. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Le 30 juil. 2017 23:28, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > All, >> > >> > I know Mark brought in Config to Geronimo. We have at least 3 more specs >> > coming in MP 1.2 (Fault Tolerance, Health, JWT Processing), possibly >> > Metrics and OpenTracing. >> > >> > I have a fully functioning JWT Processing impl based on jose ( >> > https://bitbucket.org/connect2id/nimbus-jose-jwt/src ) which I'd be happy >> > to bring over to Geronimo. >> > >> > Health is a tricky one, may make sense to start from scratch, or bring in >> > pieces of the former Sirona podling to start a health checker. >> > >> > I had started on a Fault Tolerance implementation, based on the work from >> > failsafe. However, from talking to the developer offline I'm a bit >> > worried about relying on Failsafe. >> > >> > Any thoughts on bringing these into Geronimo? >> > >> > John >> > >> > >>
