[GitHub] tomee issue #171: [Master Branch] TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutorService...
Github user rmannibucau commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/171 No issue, thanks for taking time to PR and recheck it. ---
[GitHub] tomee issue #171: [Master Branch] TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutorService...
Github user exabrial commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/171 Actually I need to close this! I wrote this patch before I read the javadoc on the scheduled executor service thoroughly. The max setting is a little misleading. When you wrote the original code you left the max out because it doesn't have the intended effect ---
[GitHub] tomee pull request #171: [Master Branch] TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutor...
Github user exabrial closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/171 ---
[GitHub] tomee issue #171: [Master Branch] TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutorService...
Github user rmannibucau commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/171 Isnt 5s too small? Also, dont forget to add new params to service-jar.xml in openejb-core. Otherwise looks good! ---
[GitHub] tomee pull request #171: [Master Branch] TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutor...
GitHub user exabrial opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/171 [Master Branch] TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutorService doesn't allow setting max value Fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TOMEE/issues/TOMEE-2240 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/exabrial/tomee issues/master_TOMEE-2240_managed-scheduled-exec-service-max-size Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/171.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #171 commit ddda42084ab530d73811ec162ffa1c097a41794a Author: Jonathan S. Fisher Date: 2018-09-22T20:04:09Z Fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TOMEE/issues/TOMEE-2240 ---
[GitHub] tomee pull request #170: TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutorService doesn't ...
GitHub user exabrial opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/170 TOMEE-2240 ManagedScheduledExecutorService doesn't allow setting max value Fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TOMEE/issues/TOMEE-2240 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/exabrial/tomee issues/TOMEE-2240_managed-scheduled-exec-service-max-size Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/170.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #170 commit 877f2a4458323f83c59f3a74cc2e3dc9eaeda3db Author: Jonathan S. Fisher Date: 2018-09-22T20:00:25Z Fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TOMEE/issues/TOMEE-2240 ---
Re: TomEE 8 Release Notes Preview
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 1:52 AM, Matthew Broadhead > wrote: > > i thought TomEE 8 was going to target Java 8 first? a yum search on my > CentOS server shows isn't even offering Java 11 yet. is TomEE 8 supposed to > support 11 based on some specifications? > > although i suppose it would be eye catching to demo Java 11 support at a > conference... Right I think that's an important discussion point. I was imagining we'd still compile on Java 8, but work out any issues that'd prevent it from running in Java 11. I don't know if this is possible. If this is a situation where we'd have to drop Java 8 support or there are complicated or non-optimal trade-offs, then I think we probably need to move ahead with Java 8 and discuss the impact of Java 11 a bit more. -David
Re: TomEE 8 Release Notes Preview
Is it possible to upgrade ActiveMQ to the latest 5.15.6? It contained an important fix for client TLS hostname verification -- Sent from: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Dev-f982480.html
Re: MP JWT filter eating exceptions
Tx Roberto, I was (still am) busy the past week too. No problem bud. Thanks for taking a look at that. []s, Thiago. On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 6:47 AM Roberto Cortez wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > I was on vacations. I’ll have al look. > > I was actually updating our current mp-jwt code to that latest spec. > > Cheers, > Roberto > > > On 21 Sep 2018, at 14:46, Thiago Veronezi wrote: > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > Tx bud. PR updated. I will merge it later today. > > Regarding the side note: I like where it is currently.It makes it simpler > > to contribute. > > > > []s, > > Thiago. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:58 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Thiago > >> > >> The block was fine to handle jwt errors and convert them in 4xx but it > was > >> missing a final "else" to rethrow the original exception. > >> > >> Side note: since other mp spec are Geronimo ones, maybe this one should > be > >> migrated too to G impl? > >> > >> Le jeu. 20 sept. 2018 00:22, Thiago Veronezi a > >> écrit : > >> > >>> Guys (probably Jean-Louis or Roberto), > >>> > >>> Can you guys check this PR? https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/169/ > >>> > >>> I'm trying to use JWT in this project, and got bitten by this catch > block > >>> hiding a problem with my code. Is this the right way? Maybe I didn't > >> quite > >>> get what the original comment tries to explain. > >>> > >>> []s, > >>> Thiago. > >>> > >> > >
Re: TomEE 8 Release Notes Preview
Oh, now I see that romain just upgraded. I will try with xbean 4.10 -- Sent from: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Dev-f982480.html
Re: TomEE 8 Release Notes Preview
Hi, just to share our experience, it works fine with java 11 runtime. If we compile to java 11 (sourceCompatibility = 11) we get an error with xbean: Caused by: java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: null at org.apache.xbean.asm6.ClassVisitor.visitNestHostExperimental(ClassVisitor.java:158) at org.apache.xbean.asm6.ClassReader.accept(ClassReader.java:541) at org.apache.xbean.asm6.ClassReader.accept(ClassReader.java:391) at org.apache.xbean.finder.AnnotationFinder.readClassDef(AnnotationFinder.java:1168) at org.apache.xbean.finder.AnnotationFinder.(AnnotationFinder.java:145) at org.apache.xbean.finder.AnnotationFinder.(AnnotationFinder.java:158) at org.apache.openejb.config.FinderFactory$OpenEJBAnnotationFinder.(FinderFactory.java:546) at org.apache.openejb.config.FinderFactory.newFinder(FinderFactory.java:267) at org.apache.openejb.config.FinderFactory.create(FinderFactory.java:80) But I think it may work upgrading to asm 6.2.1 in xbean. (but we don't use bval neither openjpa) -- Sent from: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Dev-f982480.html
Re: TomEE 8 Release Notes Preview
if it is close to ready for a release with 8 then i agree. is it possible to start another branch targeting 11 support to see if it is feasible before conference, or will that duplicate effort if it is split from main branch? On 26/09/18 10:58, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: There's no spec requirement, but lots of people keep asking me for it. Given the timescale, I'd be inclined to start a release with Java 8 support asap. Jon On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, 09:52 Matthew Broadhead, wrote: i thought TomEE 8 was going to target Java 8 first? a yum search on my CentOS server shows isn't even offering Java 11 yet. is TomEE 8 supposed to support 11 based on some specifications? although i suppose it would be eye catching to demo Java 11 support at a conference... On 25/09/18 23:17, David Blevins wrote: Speaking from my own perspective, if we could get 11 support into the TomEE 8 release and *still* make the CodeOne date, that'd be amazing. What is the best way for people to help?
Re: TomEE 8 Release Notes Preview
There's no spec requirement, but lots of people keep asking me for it. Given the timescale, I'd be inclined to start a release with Java 8 support asap. Jon On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, 09:52 Matthew Broadhead, wrote: > i thought TomEE 8 was going to target Java 8 first? a yum search on my > CentOS server shows isn't even offering Java 11 yet. is TomEE 8 > supposed to support 11 based on some specifications? > > although i suppose it would be eye catching to demo Java 11 support at a > conference... > > On 25/09/18 23:17, David Blevins wrote: > > Speaking from my own perspective, if we could get 11 support into the > TomEE 8 release and *still* make the CodeOne date, that'd be amazing. > > > > What is the best way for people to help? > > > > > >
Re: TomEE 8 Release Notes Preview
i thought TomEE 8 was going to target Java 8 first? a yum search on my CentOS server shows isn't even offering Java 11 yet. is TomEE 8 supposed to support 11 based on some specifications? although i suppose it would be eye catching to demo Java 11 support at a conference... On 25/09/18 23:17, David Blevins wrote: Speaking from my own perspective, if we could get 11 support into the TomEE 8 release and *still* make the CodeOne date, that'd be amazing. What is the best way for people to help?
Re: MicroProfile JWT 1.1
OWB enable to do it - we did it in geronimo impl to pass tck of jwt auth spec. Le mer. 26 sept. 2018 03:28, Roberto Cortez a écrit : > Hi, > > I’ve done some work to push our MP JWT implementation from 1.0 to 1.1. > > You can check it here: > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/173 < > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/173> > > There are still a couple of tests in the TCK that I have to fix and a few > things that I would like to improve, but I think the majority of the work > is done. > > Some time ago, there was a discussion in the list about how to integrate > MP JWT with EE security: > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Implementing-Microprofile-JWT-td4683212i40.html > < > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Implementing-Microprofile-JWT-td4683212i40.html > > > > I believe we need to revisit that conversation and figure out how to move > forward. > > Right now for instance, we don’t support injecting a JWT Principal since > it clashes with the predefined by CDI. Most likely, we would need to plugin > the JWT Principal lookup in TomcatSecurityService. I’m not sure if we want > to do it in that way, or if we want to think in something else. > > Cheers, > Roberto
