Sorry Romain but I still have doubts if the code is really reusable, like
that you can just add it to WildFly or Payara and that it works. (like
Geronimo Config for example)

Things like integrating with @RolesAllowed is not standardized (except
using JASPIC maybe which I tried but I had other issues)

More generic parts like injecting the Claims etc, that could work.

But I'm fine that the code is maintained at Geronimo, that TomEE code only
contains the integration parts. But it will not be a complete
implementation of MP JWT Auth (The Geronimo project).

Rudy

On 10 April 2018 at 06:58, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 10 avr. 2018 05:23, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Officially closing the vote.  Thanks for the patience everyone.  As
> mentioned in the other vote, this one needed some good discussion and a bit
> of extra time.
>
> +1s
> Andy Gumbrecht
> David Blevins
> Ivan Junckes Filho
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> Jonathan Gallimore
> Thiago Veronezi
>
> +0
> Rudy De Busscher
>
> -1s
> Mark Struberg
> Romain Manni-Bucau
>
> This was intended as a non-technical vote, so I've registered Mark's -1 as
> he intended it.  Thanks, Mark, for the clarification.  Matthew, you didn't
> vote, your participation was quite high -- thank you!  You're more then
> welcome to vote, sir :)
>
> This was a consensus vote to see if there was will keep working on the JWT
> code here and see if it could be made reusable.  We didn't really need this
> vote to accomplish anything other than to see where people's heads are at
> and make sure we're communicating with each other clearly.
>
> It does seem over all that the desire is to take a couple more steps.  This
> vote did not address where the code should live in its final state.  We
> don't really know how reusable anything will be.
>
>
>
> ...it has been mention 3 times the code IS reusable and should just be a
> lib. It was codes this exact way so no ambiguity here.
>
>
> I'd probably expect us to take a few more steps, see how things look and
> come back to the "where" topic.
>
>
> -David
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 5:02 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The vote for merging PR 123 does not address community will on what to do
> with the code beyond merging it.  One can realistically vote +1 to merge
> the code, but then desire to see the code cleaned up and moved elsewhere.
> One can realistically desire seeing an attempt to clean up the code to find
> what is reusable and may wish to withhold a final decision until we see how
> fruitful such a module would be.
> >
> > Out of respect for people who may not know exactly how they feel (TomEE
> or Geronimo), this is a vote for the latter.
> >
> > Vote: Should we attempt to extract code from the JWT PR to see what is
> reusable and how successful such a jar would be?
> >
> > +1 Let's give it a shot here
> > +-0
> > -1 Let's do this elsewhere
> >
> > If the vote is +1 to attempt an extraction of reusable code here, final
> conclusion of if that extraction is worth it or where it should live is not
> being voted on.  People are welcome to decide differently based on the
> results of the exercise.
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
>

Reply via email to