why -> for consistency accross our coupled communities why does it matter if it is in G for T? -> it doesn't
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book 2018-04-12 15:56 GMT+02:00 Matthew Broadhead <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>: > we already include libraries from geronimo, e.g. javamail, so why does it > matter where the library resides as long as it can be included in the > package > > > On 11/04/2018 15:05, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >> Hi Matthew, >> >> No, technicall there are a lot of small things to do before it can be >> "included" but the main blocker for me is that the exact same project >> is created at geronimo (actually this code was designed to be owned by >> geronimo and the artifact imported in tomee). >> Since G will have it I would like to avoid to have to maintain 2 >> versions of the "same" code, it already proved being a failure promise >> multiple times so it is more a management reason than a technical one >> since the spec is pretty trivial. >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> >> >> 2018-04-11 14:54 GMT+02:00 Matthew Broadhead >> <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>: >>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Thanks for the invitation to vote. I don't want to vote because I am not >>> sure I have enough knowledge to be able to do so. >>> >>> My gut feeling would probably be to side with Mark and Romain as they >>> have >>> been very supportive with my queries about TomEE and they have shown >>> deep >>> technical knowledge about the inner workings. >>> >>> On the other hand I don't want to dismiss the excellent effort others are >>> making on the JWT issue. However as long as the code is reusable and >>> finds >>> a home it will not be wasted. >>> >>> I am still interested to know what Mark and Romain are looking for before >>> they accept it into the project. Does it need to have proven track >>> record >>> and reliability? It is a security plugin after all... >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> On 10/04/2018 05:23, David Blevins wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >
