The PR has been merged.
Thanks everyone for voting.

--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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