Hi JL, In my opinion, I think we should move to MP 2.0. We started with MP 1.3 to start to support something and because we didn’t have implementations to support 2.0, which we have now, aside from Fault Tolerance (work is being done on Geronimo at the moment).
There is already a PR with all of those fixes: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212> We just need to combine this with the JWT 1.1 work. Cheers, Roberto > On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:40, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let's revive this discussion ... > > We are working on build stability (see other thread). > I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API we > pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant. > > Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as opposed > to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a > NoSuchMethodException. > > So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)? > Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else? > > Thoughts? > > > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Good question. >> >> I think the community could help with the following topics: >> >> - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the >> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out. >> >> - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might be >> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what is >> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT >> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both >> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are >> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go out >> there to find them. >> >> - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t >> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good candidates. >> >> - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our main >> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant (or >> 2.x for that matter). >> >> Cheers, >> Roberto >> >>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> How can people help? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Blevins >>> http://twitter.com/dblevins >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> >>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0: >>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 < >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212> >>>> >>>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be >> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some >> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look >> into it as well. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Roberto >>> >> >>
