>
> Primarily what I'd like to do is really nail the public key format
> manipulation. I did a huge amount of research in this and would like to
> come up with an extremely well tested library that can natively read all
> the dominate file formats PKCS 1 & 5 PEM, JWK{S} and has command-line tools
> for converting between them.
That would be super awesome. I have been working on the same thing the past
month or so.
Rudy
On 2 May 2018 at 00:13, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Requested a repo we could potentially use for this.
>
> Primarily what I'd like to do is really nail the public key format
> manipulation. I did a huge amount of research in this and would like to
> come up with an extremely well tested library that can natively read all
> the dominate file formats PKCS 1 & 5 PEM, JWK{S} and has command-line tools
> for converting between them.
>
> This could be useful to both the TomEE and Geronimo MicroProfile JWT impls.
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:32 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >
> > The code still is in a PR (#123) for the moment
> >
> > I'm in to help.
> > Still some small fixes to do and I'd like MP-Config to be used to
> configure
> > keys, issues, and others.
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> As noted elsewhere: the vote question was a mixture of 'what do you
> >> think' (consensus -> majority vote) and 'is it ok' (technical ->
> unanimous
> >> vote).
> >> I'd also be in favour to do the generic parts in Geronimo and only do
> the
> >> integration in TomEE. So yes, in a consensus vote I'd also vote -1. If
> this
> >> is interpreted as commit vote then I vote -0
> >> The work is the same and as long as it's been done I'm fine either ways.
> >> Now that we did all the 3 weeks of rambling and discussions let's focus
> on
> >> the important stuff.
> >> Where is the code? Who did already work on it? Or do we again have 30
> >> people discussing but just 2 working? ;)
> >>
> >> LieGrue,strub
> >> On Wednesday, 4 April 2018, 01:14:57 CEST, David Blevins <
> >> david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 31, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It was more as a "if im always the only one seeing tomee differently i
> >> can
> >>> leave to let you space". Not as a threat.
> >>
> >> That's a generous sentiment. Either way the best outcome is that you
> stay
> >> and we all learn the lesson that disagreeing is ok and healthy. How is
> the
> >> most important part.
> >>
> >> Disagreement can be an incredibly productive and innovative thing if
> done
> >> right. By definition, that means this project is sitting on some
> >> incredible innovative potential.
> >>
> >> A concrete way I think we can measure ourselves is by the number of
> people
> >> who feel comfortable voting. I would consider a vote of 20 people that
> >> included 3 -1 votes to be significantly more healthy than a vote of 3
> >> people and all +1s.
> >>
> >>> [...]
> >>> There is no veto at apache if you check rules closely. All is more
> about
> >>> respect and overall consensus IIRC.
> >>
> >> I want to be careful that we don't learn a false lesson as Apache does
> >> have technical vetos. These are more meant for line-of-code level
> input vs
> >> community direction.
> >>
> >> The intention of the two votes was to make the line a little more clear.
> >>
> >> - The first vote "Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support" was
> >> intended to flush out line-of-code level technical issues with the PR:
> >> breaks the build; doesn't follow code style; introduces security issues.
> >> It's ultimately a Review-than-Commit vote and a -1 should be viewed as a
> >> technical veto.
> >>
> >> - The second vote "Explore creating a reusable JWT Library" was intended
> >> to determine overall desire on what the next step should be. No commit
> >> being reviewed, more of a community level discussion. A -1 should not
> be
> >> viewed as a veto.
> >>
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
>
>
