2018-04-10 9:24 GMT+02:00 Rudy De Busscher <rdebussc...@gmail.com>: > 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)
It will support the CDI+servlet support OOTB, the PR brings the servlet/EJB integration (independently of microprofile) and we plugged in for jwt-auth to have EJB integration. But it still means we are reusable in any CDI/servlet based server OOTB without any dep and fully cover tomee scope so yes we are reusable - we did it intentionally. > > Things like integrating with @RolesAllowed is not standardized (except > using JASPIC maybe which I tried but I had other issues) It is done though the CDI extension > > More generic parts like injecting the Claims etc, that could work. Still a CDI thing. > > 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 >> > >>
