A build from master is not an official Apache release and there are specific rules for referencing release distributions and artifacts. Unfortunately, the language that I have found isn't clear enough for me to determine what if any violation exists there.
I don't want to introduce a link in docs that will becomes stale for each release and require a refresh of the external demo repo that may require changes to previous versions of the docs, etc. When we release 0.9.0 - the 0.8.0 release will be obsolete. Can we assume that there will be a new one for 0.9.0 and have to change the link to point to that? Will the repo that was previously 0.8.0 be refreshed to 0.9.0 and subsequently require the link to be removed from the 0.8.0 docs? All of that said, I do see value in pac4j having this quick start demo. My suggestion is that the link in the Knox docs that point to detailed pac4j docs have a prominent pointer to the demo. The repo and your docs will be more easily kept in sync than cross project dependencies and new releases. On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Jérôme LELEU <[email protected]> wrote: > OK. I still think that the demo is valuable for a quick startup, but above > all, it means that I must re-create the demo from the Apache release of > Knox 0.8.0 as soon as it will be available... > > I'm not sure to understand what is the problem with the current master in > terms of licensing, it's under the Apache license as well, isn't it? > > > 2016-01-20 13:46 GMT+01:00 larry mccay <[email protected]>: > > > You make an interesting point about usability here. > > > > At the same time, it highlights the fact that the installation would not > be > > from an Apache distribution channel and I would be concerned about folks > > checking out the demo and once it was working not picking up an official > > release. > > > > The current demo is based on your build from the master branch - I > assume. > > This isn't an official Apache release which is may be problematic > > license-wise. > > > > The steps that you describe for trying it out are necessary only because > it > > requires a build from master - until 0.8.0 is released. At which time, > the > > user would download an official Apache release of Knox 0.8.0, unzip it, > > copy the templates into place and fire it up. > > > > It might be interesting to consider a script for copying the templates > for > > various configurations into place as a usability improvement. > > > > I will try and find some Apache language about non-Apache distributions > for > > such a purpose and see whether it is legal to reference them. > > In the meantime, I would be interested in others' opinions on the matter. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Jérôme LELEU <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > You're right: maintaining the demos is a work in itself and we could > > > (should) put samples in the templates directory. > > > > > > Though, I think the demo is valuable to promote Knox: let's say someone > > as > > > an Hadoop installation and want to secure it: how can he try Knox? > > Checkout > > > the source, build it, copy the templates at the right place: it might > be > > > discouraging and complicated for a beginner. While with the demo: > > checkout, > > > copy the launch command and test... > > > > > > In any case, it's in the pac4j organization. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > Best regards, > > > Jérôme > > > > > > > > > 2016-01-19 16:11 GMT+01:00 larry mccay <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > Hmmmm... > > > > > > > > I think that providing appropriate templates (see the templates > > directory > > > > in the knox install) for both the knoxsso.xml (instead of idp.xml) > and > > > > sandbox.xml to reflect the same config would provide the same value > and > > > be > > > > self contained without the need to keep the binaries up to date in > the > > > demo > > > > with each release. > > > > > > > > There is probably value in a blog for early access to pac4j provider > > demo > > > > that could point to the demo. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jérôme LELEU <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Should we add a link in the documentation to point to the demo? > > > > > > > > > > 2016-01-19 14:19 GMT+01:00 larry mccay <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > That's great! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Jérôme LELEU <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Following my own idea, here is a demo with the Knox / pac4j > > > support: > > > > > > > https://github.com/pac4j/knox-pac4j-demo > > > > > > > Feel free to submit pull requests if you want me to amend it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Jérôme > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-01-18 11:03 GMT+01:00 Jérôme LELEU <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's great news! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One more thing I'm thinking of: we always have a demo > > > corresponding > > > > > to > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > pac4j support. It would be great to have a knox-pac4j-demo > and > > > > > > reference > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > from the manual. I can handle it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Jérôme > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-01-17 6:37 GMT+01:00 larry mccay <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> KNOX-641 and KNOX-642 have both been committed to master. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> There is a new docs book where you can check out the pac4j > > docs > > > > > > > available: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://knox.apache.org/books/knox-0-8-0/user-guide.html#Pac4j+Provider+-+CAS+/+OAuth+/+SAML+/+OpenID+Connect > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I have some additional ideas for the docs that I will roll > out > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > >> few days. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> We need to discuss the identity assertion approach for > 0.8.0. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I think we are on track for 1/29 release date. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
