Hi Marc, > So what do you think? Are you interested in it?
Absolutely :-) WSS4J currently has two branches, 1.5.x (current release 1.5.12) that is essentially deprecated but still maintained for bug-fixes (and used by Rampart), and trunk (current release 1.6.2) which involved the Opensaml2 update. Once I finish the Kerberos support trunk will be more or less feature complete I think. I think we could use your project as the basis for a WSS4J 2.0 release next year. You would need to submit the code under an Apache License, and we could subsequently grant you commit rights for the project. I think the code as is would likely need quite a lot of work, but we would start by just dumping the code in svn and discussing what needs to be done with it etc. For example, your project is coupled with WS-SecurityPolicy support which WSS4J does not currently do, so we could discuss whether it should stay like this, or whether we could separate it out into a separate module etc. How many cases does it actually create a DOM tree - just for SAML creation/processing? I took a quick look at the source-code - I couldn't compile the latest snapshot code, it looks like it is not compiling the schemas by default? What do you think? Colm. On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Marc Giger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello All > > Back in january i wrote an email > (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201101.mbox/%[email protected]%3E) > to the incubator mailing list to discuss the inclusion of > swssf as a new incubator project. The feedback was positive but > the people suggested as alternative way the inclusion into WSS4J. > > So here I am again:-) > > It would be a pity when all of the code fizzles out. > Details to the project and the code can be found on > http://gigerstyle.homelinux.com/?page_id=76 > > If you find the code or parts of it useful, I'm willing to > re-license it under the Apache License. > > It is not my intention to leave the code the ASF and forget > about it. Further development from my side is guaranteed. > > So what do you think? Are you interested in it? > One of the open discussion points will be the integration: Should / > Can it be integrated as it is or must be done some adaptions? > Or probably you don't like the concept? Tell me please! > > Thank you. > > Kind regards > > Marc > > -- > Lesson 1: Cryptographic protocols should not be developed by a > committee. -- Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh http://coheigea.blogspot.com/ Talend - http://www.talend.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
