Hi Stepan,
The overall idea is to isolate providers' code from 'regular code' and make
Well, I completely support the idea of isolating extra stuff from the
"regular" code. The only question is in what way should we do this.
Please explain why. Now we have 'javac' and 'keytool' in 'tools' module and
I hope will have more tools there. I just propose to do the same for
providers, for example
IMHO with tools we have at least one common thing for all tools - this
is a command-line interface. But with providers the common stuff is
just the fact that they are "providers" - i.e. applications that
comply to some Service Provider Interface (specific to every
provider).
Probably we can think about something like having one module per SPI
(jndiproviders, securityproviders, etc.)?
Regards,
2006/7/25, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Alexei,
The overall idea is to isolate providers' code from 'regular code' and make
it possible to build different 'harmony providers' distributions.
On 7/24/06, Alexei Zakharov wrote:
>
> Hi Stepan,
>
> FYI there are other modules that contain providers, "jndi" for
> example. The JNDI DNS provider is currently located there. If someone
> will decide to implement some other JNDI provider we will need to
> decide where should we put it. IMHO it is not a very good idea to keep
> different types of providers (jndi and security here) at one place.
Please explain why. Now we have 'javac' and 'keytool' in 'tools' module and
I hope will have more tools there. I just propose to do the same for
providers, for example
modules/
providers/
src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/
archive/provider/
pack200
jndi/provider/
dns
security/provider/
cert/
crypto/
Thanks,
Stepan.
Regards,
>
> 2006/7/24, Stepan Mishura :
> > IMO, it is not a big issue. We may create one module for all providers
> (like
> > 'tools' module) and building 'providers' module will produce a set of
> > required jars.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan.
> >
> >
> > On 7/24/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > >
> > > If we create separate module for each provider then number of modules
> is
> > > going
> > > to be too big... (e.g. RI has 6 or 7 providers)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > 2006/7/24, Stepan Mishura :
> > > > On 7/19/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > A long ago we agreed that providers go into a separate module. But
> > > > > now I think it's might be not very reasonable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mikhail,
> > > >
> > > > Why you think that is not reasonable?
> > > >
> > > > Here is the initial proposal:
> > > >
> > >
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Stepan.
> > > >
> > > > Sun keeps certificates in its own proprietary format (JKS), while we
> > > have
> > > > > BKS from Bouncy Castle, so files will have to be converted. I can
> do
> > > this
> > > > > next week
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > 2006/7/19, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tim Ellison wrote:
> > > > > > > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > > > > > >> I'm integrating HARMONY-536, the JSSE provider. Two things:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 1) it's contributed to go into x-net, but the package
> namespace
> > > is
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> o.a.h.security.provider.jsse
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> so I wonder if this would be better off in the security
> > > module. If
> > > > > not,
> > > > > > >> we are stuck because we don't have a 'negative' patternset
> for
> > > jar
> > > > > > >> packaging, so it's getting sucked into security jar right now
> > > anyway
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMHO it should be in x-net. Can't you rename the package?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course. Something was going to get moved, just wanted to see
> any
> > > > > > other opinions..
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 2) I have a little test proggie that shows that it's
> negotiating
> > > w/
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> other side, but given we have no cacerts, it whines and gives
> up.
> > > > > (It's
> > > > > > >> a reasonable whine...) Lazily and naively, I threw the
> cacerts
> > > from
> > > > > > >> Sun's JRE into jre/lib/security and prayed, but the security
> > > deities
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> not smiling on me today. So, where does/what format/etc/etc
> > > should
> > > > > our
> > > > > > >> root cert file go?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dunno. I know you were just playing, but AIUI the use of root
> > > > > > > certificates for popular CA's cost $'s don't they?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't think so. I thought that they gave the root certs away
> > > because
> > > > > > the value of a cert provider is directly proportional to the
> amount
> > > of
> > > > > > software out there that can understand it's certs...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hopefully Boris will enlighten us to the format used.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Tim
>
>
--
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
