Re: MP-JWT progress

Personally I'd prefer to do it directly as ut will be since there is no technical challenge at all. Le 27 mars 2018 23:39, "Jonathan Gallimore" a écrit : > I'm currently pulling the TomEE sandbox to Git from SVN. Seems like a long > process, I'll post when it is done. I'd be supportive of exper

Re: MP-JWT progress

I'm currently pulling the TomEE sandbox to Git from SVN. Seems like a long process, I'll post when it is done. I'd be supportive of experimental work taking place there. When its at the point of being released, I'd prefer it to have its own repo. Jon On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Jean-Louis M

Re: MP-JWT progress

I've tried to answer the 2 VOTE threads. Another option is to merge and immediately extract the code into a sandbox project so everyone can clearly see what is reusable or not. Would that help? -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Mon, Mar 19, 201

Re: MP-JWT progress

Used most to be explicit and my meaning but your wording is more correct. Le 19 mars 2018 22:46, "Mark Struberg" a écrit : > heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having > something tomee independent in the back of your head please! > It's not that we need to go through inc

Re: MP-JWT progress

heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having something tomee independent in the back of your head please! It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move things over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid duplications if possible. > Jwt-auth

Re: MP-JWT progress

Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-) On 19/03/18 17

Re: MP-JWT progress

Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put in tomee codebase. Hope it is clearer this time. Le 19 mars 2018 18:54, "John D. Ament" a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > > 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > > > >> > >>

Re: MP-JWT progress

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a >>> écrit : >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Ma

Re: MP-JWT progress

On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE o

Re: MP-JWT progress

Thanks for the reply. I've split that out into a separate thread so it doesn't hijack this one and will just give people space to object / discuss, and then I'll move that over. Jon On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > No nees to ask to move vode over sandbox, great id

Re: MP-JWT progress

No nees to ask to move vode over sandbox, great idea Jon. Le 19 mars 2018 12:10, "Jonathan Gallimore" a écrit : > We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with > different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it did > a > while back (ok, 10 years b

Re: MP-JWT progress

We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it did a while back (ok, 10 years back - has it really been that long...?) for an Eclipse plugin. I think we need a safe place where experimentation can happe

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-19 11:04 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht : > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. you describe ASF here ;) However it is also important to not shout in our own foot and this is what

Re: MP-JWT progress

I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so. On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote: @Anydy and @David Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still.

Re: MP-JWT progress

@Anydy and @David Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still. For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoption

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-19 9:37 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht : > I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should > allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where things > should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves to block > any progress at the moment

Re: MP-JWT progress

I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after a week of ba

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > >> >> >> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a >> écrit : >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> > >> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happe

Re: MP-JWT progress

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with

Re: MP-JWT progress

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a écrit : > > > > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > > > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee > > As far as I understand the topic is still open a

Re: MP-JWT progress

Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a écrit : > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right? Yes Is there

Re: MP-JWT progress

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right? Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to col

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-18 20:38 GMT+01:00 David Blevins : > In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now. > > If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred. > I'm not following the rational here. Let me try to summarize another time for you to ensure we speak of th

Re: MP-JWT progress

In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now. If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > I'd lean towards the side

Re: MP-JWT progress

@JL: ok I let you do @David: hmm, not sure which part I missed but there is nothing to merge except the TCK part which requires to extract it from the PR. This is what JL will do tmr so we can merge it after. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: MP-JWT progress

I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge this at least? -David > On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo. > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > >> If there

Re: MP-JWT progress

I can do it tomorrow morning romain Le 18 mars 2018 18:31, "Romain Manni-Bucau" a écrit : > quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the > project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau |

Re: MP-JWT progress

quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: MP-JWT progress

OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo. On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro wrote: > So what's the conclusion here? > > Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes > there along side with other implementations? > Or do you guys prefer

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-12 16:01 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro : > So what's the conclusion here? > > Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes > there along side with other implementations? > +1 from me > Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl? > > I don't

Re: MP-JWT progress

So what's the conclusion here? Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes there along side with other implementations? Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl? I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move on with the co

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore : > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere. There's > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining > before it can be "moved" in my view. > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable

Re: MP-JWT progress

Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere. There's some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining before it can be "moved" in my view. Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may well be what we end up with. Wherever that lives

Re: MP-JWT progress

I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo. If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made clear from the beginning for all potential usages. On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament wrote: > I do

Re: MP-JWT progress

I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time) > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau

Re: MP-JWT progress

for example JAX-RS application class annotated with @LoginConfig. > only urls defined in the @ApplicationPath should use the JWT Auth method. Other endpoints, like servlet should use the 'default' method defined in the web.xml. AFAIK, there exist no integration point possible to do this, not even

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-09 12:02 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher : > No objection but an important remark to make. > > it will not be enough to just add this geronimo-jwt-auth artifact to a > server to have it functional. There will be some server-side integration > code required (just as we will need for TomEE) > i

Re: MP-JWT progress

No objection but an important remark to make. it will not be enough to just add this geronimo-jwt-auth artifact to a server to have it functional. There will be some server-side integration code required (just as we will need for TomEE) This is thus clearly different from other microprofile impl

Re: MP-JWT progress

If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: MP-JWT progress

2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro : > Hi community, > > > So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation. > > With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the > help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK > I have

MP-JWT progress

Hi community, So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation. With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT). Now the question is how