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

Reply via email to