Re: IP Clearance for Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Jonathan Gallimore]

Can you post where we need to review? I'm more than happy to help with the
review process.

Jon

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:

> John, I have both cleaned up with the right headers, notice and license
> files.
> It's ready for review. I'll be creating the git repos tonight and push
> sources for review in a tomitribe repo.
>
> As soon as everyone is happy we can do the actual import @Apache
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:55 PM, David Blevins 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, John.
> >
> > > On Feb 13, 2018, at 9:43 AM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The overall IP Clearance process can be found at [2].  Someone will
> need
> > to
> > > commit the necessary files, call the vote etc.  I would recommend
> > separate
> > > IP Clearances for each component.  I believe I would be comfortable
> > > pointing to specific git hashes for the import, assuming you would want
> > to
> > > have infra just move the repos from tomitribe to apache on github,
> > instead
> > > of recreating the repos (helps keep the stars and forks in sync).
> >
> > Moving the repos is ideal if we could do that.  Then github will
> redirect.
> >
> > How do we execute that option?
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
>

Re: IP Clearance for Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

John, I have both cleaned up with the right headers, notice and license
files.
It's ready for review. I'll be creating the git repos tonight and push
sources for review in a tomitribe repo.

As soon as everyone is happy we can do the actual import @Apache

--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:55 PM, David Blevins 
wrote:

> Thanks, John.
>
> > On Feb 13, 2018, at 9:43 AM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> >
> > The overall IP Clearance process can be found at [2].  Someone will need
> to
> > commit the necessary files, call the vote etc.  I would recommend
> separate
> > IP Clearances for each component.  I believe I would be comfortable
> > pointing to specific git hashes for the import, assuming you would want
> to
> > have infra just move the repos from tomitribe to apache on github,
> instead
> > of recreating the repos (helps keep the stars and forks in sync).
>
> Moving the repos is ideal if we could do that.  Then github will redirect.
>
> How do we execute that option?
>
>
> -David
>
>

Re: IP Clearance for Sheldon and Chatterbox

[David Blevins]

Thanks, John.

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 9:43 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> The overall IP Clearance process can be found at [2].  Someone will need to
> commit the necessary files, call the vote etc.  I would recommend separate
> IP Clearances for each component.  I believe I would be comfortable
> pointing to specific git hashes for the import, assuming you would want to
> have infra just move the repos from tomitribe to apache on github, instead
> of recreating the repos (helps keep the stars and forks in sync).

Moving the repos is ideal if we could do that.  Then github will redirect.

How do we execute that option?


-David

Re: IP Clearance for Sheldon and Chatterbox

[John D. Ament]

Hey David & co

Assuming all files in the donation already have the header as found at [1],
then no an SGA wouldn't be required.  We've been leaning towards keeping
SGAs just when the license and copyrights need to change.  It appears the
original authors already had the ASF in mind so no need to change
anything.  If any contributor hasn't signed an ICLA, they should sign an
ICLA; but considering the code is already apache licensed it wouldn't be
needed.  You may want to consider adding a NOTICE entry indicating that the
original authors were Tomitribe not Apache, but up to you.

The overall IP Clearance process can be found at [2].  Someone will need to
commit the necessary files, call the vote etc.  I would recommend separate
IP Clearances for each component.  I believe I would be comfortable
pointing to specific git hashes for the import, assuming you would want to
have infra just move the repos from tomitribe to apache on github, instead
of recreating the repos (helps keep the stars and forks in sync).

John

[1]:
https://github.com/tomitribe/sheldon/blob/master/sheldon-impl/src/main/java/org/tomitribe/sheldon/cdi/TerminalSessionContext.java
[2]: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/


On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:14 PM David Blevins 
wrote:

> John, can you put on your Incubator hat and remind me of the process?
>
> I vaguely recall we'll need:
>
>  - Software Grant from Tomitribe for both codebases
>  - iCLA for anyone who doesn't already have it
>
> I think we're good on iCLAs -- everyone is already a committer.  Daniel
> Cunha is not yet a TomEE committer.  I forget how we handled that in
> Geronimo.
>
> I also seemed to recall there was a formal checklist.
>
>
> -David
>
>

IP Clearance for Sheldon and Chatterbox

[David Blevins]

John, can you put on your Incubator hat and remind me of the process?

I vaguely recall we'll need:

 - Software Grant from Tomitribe for both codebases
 - iCLA for anyone who doesn't already have it

I think we're good on iCLAs -- everyone is already a committer.  Daniel Cunha 
is not yet a TomEE committer.  I forget how we handled that in Geronimo.

I also seemed to recall there was a formal checklist.


-David

Fwd: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Mark Struberg]

Hi folks!

Mike had a grat response on the imact and potential downsides of becoming an 
Umbrella project.
I asked for his permisson to forward, so here we go.
Txs Mike for the additional input!

LieGrue,
strub


> 
> Von: Mike Kienenberger 
> Betreff: Aw: Implementing Microprofile JWT
> Datum: 13. Februar 2018 um 16:08:24 MEZ
> An: bo...@apache.org
> 
> As the Chair of an umbrella project (MyFaces), I strongly recommend
> against making umbrella projects.
> 
> Umbrella projects end up with a lot of unloved components, and this
> happens without anyone realizing it as it is difficult to have the
> same oversight for subprojects as there is for a TLP.
> 
> There is going to be some point where smaller items are too small to
> handle individually, but you should have the mindset that whenever a
> subproject gets enough community to support it that it should
> immediately spin off to its own TLP.
> 
> Right now, MyFaces has 11 subprojects.   Only two of them are actively
> developed.  The people working on several of these subprojects drifted
> away and no one noticed because it wasn't important to the remaining
> people.   Most of those who remain are, rightly so, not willing to
> devote volunteer time to something they have little-to-no involvement
> with.  The other PMC members will still do it grudgingly but as a
> burden.   Even "retiring" these subprojects is not possible because no
> one is willing to spend the time to make that happen.
> 
> To recap, my recommendations to the PMC of an umbrella project would be:
> 
> - Require subproject reports.   Have them due two weeks before the TLP
> board report is due.   Merge them into the TLP board report.   Use
> similar criteria to determine subproject health.  The PMC becomes "the
> board" within their domain.
> 
> - Split subprojects off to TLPs immediately as soon as a sustainable
> community develops.  This might be before code exists.
> 
> - Have a plan beforehand on when and how you are going to "retire"
> subprojects which are no longer maintained.  You are going to need
> your own attic concept.
> 

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Too early for me to figure this out. Really need to get an example working
so that I can think of a cleaner design.

--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> Might do as well.
> But the JSON-P part is really well abstracted. So this is easy to plug-in.
>
> I'm more worried about the authorisation and authentication interface.
> Anything EE security seems way too heavyweight for me. This might work out
> for TomEE, but would kill it's use in any more lightweight approach.
> So probably introduce an own pluggable SPI for authentication and
> authorisation?
> Then it really could be done pretty much anywhere. Or do we have yet
> another 'interface area'?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 13.02.2018 um 16:52 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
> >
> > I was also thinking about a Johnzon extension (kinda)
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Mark Struberg  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I know JWT a bit and I wonder whether doing the signing part is just a
> bit
> >> of Json (JSON-P) + commons-crypto?
> >> After all JWT is especially designed to be lightweight and straight
> >> forward.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 13.02.2018 um 15:33 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>> 2018-02-13 15:28 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> >>> :
> >>>
>  Thanks for the feedback Jon.
> 
>  I had a couple of exchanges with Rudy which is happy to contribute
> some
>  code as well.
>  From what I have understood and seen, most of the code is integration
> >> code
>  and there is at least from my current knowledge a little bit of code
> to
> >> put
>  together in a reusable manner in a reusable library (where ever it
> >> sits).
>  I was planning to do a quick prototype and get it to work from end to
> >> end
>  into a working branch so we can move the discussion forward and see
> >> exactly
>  where we go.
> 
>  Regarding the signing library, I am kinda on the same page.
>  I don't see myself rewriting Johnzon to parse JSON and then Jose or
> >> Nimbus
>  to do signing. There is absolutely no point at least for the POC.
> Again,
>  we'll see if I get something working what we can do.
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Agreeing for a PoC but for a production ready software it is if it can
> >>> conflict or bring drawbacks to the users to import the solution. The
> json
> >>> lib should at least be pluggable - avoids to shade/rewrite anything but
> >> let
> >>> the integrator use what he already has. Side note for json: for the
> >> overall
> >>> consistency using JSON-P makes it easy to get a common API which
> doesn't
> >>> need any investment and solves that "plug your impl" smoothly. For the
> >>> signing part it is a bit different since it will easily bring a huge
> >> stack
> >>> - how many bring jackson, simple-json, ... by default and are not
> >>> pluggable. This is an issue and can even lead to not working
> >> installations.
> >>> If you doubt I have like 700 components to show you it is not a random
> or
> >>> theorical thought. Investment is also quite light so not sure it does
> >> worth
> >>> speaking about it days.
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
> 
>  --
>  Jean-Louis Monteiro
>  http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>  http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
>  On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John D. Ament <
> johndam...@apache.org>
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore <
> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the
> > microprofile
> >>> @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is
>  the
> > asf
> >>> ee related project umbrella.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?
> >
> > I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at
> >> [1].
> > I had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt
> very
> > strongly we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why
> that
>  is,
> > but it seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it
> > wasn't something I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within
> TomEE
>  to
> > get a JWT impl up and running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel
> > strongly relying on a 3rd party lib for the actual signature
> >> validation +
> > external sig support is important; to avoid that overhead).
> >
> > RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I 

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Mark Struberg]

Might do as well. 
But the JSON-P part is really well abstracted. So this is easy to plug-in.

I'm more worried about the authorisation and authentication interface. 
Anything EE security seems way too heavyweight for me. This might work out for 
TomEE, but would kill it's use in any more lightweight approach.
So probably introduce an own pluggable SPI for authentication and authorisation?
Then it really could be done pretty much anywhere. Or do we have yet another 
'interface area'?

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 13.02.2018 um 16:52 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> 
> I was also thinking about a Johnzon extension (kinda)
> 
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> I know JWT a bit and I wonder whether doing the signing part is just a bit
>> of Json (JSON-P) + commons-crypto?
>> After all JWT is especially designed to be lightweight and straight
>> forward.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 13.02.2018 um 15:33 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >> :
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-13 15:28 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro >> :
>>> 
 Thanks for the feedback Jon.
 
 I had a couple of exchanges with Rudy which is happy to contribute some
 code as well.
 From what I have understood and seen, most of the code is integration
>> code
 and there is at least from my current knowledge a little bit of code to
>> put
 together in a reusable manner in a reusable library (where ever it
>> sits).
 I was planning to do a quick prototype and get it to work from end to
>> end
 into a working branch so we can move the discussion forward and see
>> exactly
 where we go.
 
 Regarding the signing library, I am kinda on the same page.
 I don't see myself rewriting Johnzon to parse JSON and then Jose or
>> Nimbus
 to do signing. There is absolutely no point at least for the POC. Again,
 we'll see if I get something working what we can do.
 
 
 
>>> Agreeing for a PoC but for a production ready software it is if it can
>>> conflict or bring drawbacks to the users to import the solution. The json
>>> lib should at least be pluggable - avoids to shade/rewrite anything but
>> let
>>> the integrator use what he already has. Side note for json: for the
>> overall
>>> consistency using JSON-P makes it easy to get a common API which doesn't
>>> need any investment and solves that "plug your impl" smoothly. For the
>>> signing part it is a bit different since it will easily bring a huge
>> stack
>>> - how many bring jackson, simple-json, ... by default and are not
>>> pluggable. This is an issue and can even lead to not working
>> installations.
>>> If you doubt I have like 700 components to show you it is not a random or
>>> theorical thought. Investment is also quite light so not sure it does
>> worth
>>> speaking about it days.
>>> 
>>> 
 
 
 
 --
 Jean-Louis Monteiro
 http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
 http://www.tomitribe.com
 
 On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John D. Ament 
 wrote:
 
> 
> 
> On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com
> 
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the
> microprofile
>>> @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is
 the
> asf
>>> ee related project umbrella.
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?
> 
> I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at
>> [1].
> I had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt very
> strongly we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why that
 is,
> but it seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it
> wasn't something I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within TomEE
 to
> get a JWT impl up and running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel
> strongly relying on a 3rd party lib for the actual signature
>> validation +
> external sig support is important; to avoid that overhead).
> 
> RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I don't believe there's any hard or fast rules
> about what projects are allowed to host.  For example, there's interest
> within Skywalking to host the CDI and JAX-RS extensions to support
 OpenApi;
> but this spec doesn't represent something any server vendor would
>> support
> since its really about your APM solution.  CXF happily took on the MP
 Rest
> Client when I proposed it; though I would hope TomEE relies on the CXF
> library instead of crafting their own client (selfish desires).  The
>> JWT

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

I was also thinking about a Johnzon extension (kinda)

--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> I know JWT a bit and I wonder whether doing the signing part is just a bit
> of Json (JSON-P) + commons-crypto?
> After all JWT is especially designed to be lightweight and straight
> forward.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> > Am 13.02.2018 um 15:33 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > 2018-02-13 15:28 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro  >:
> >
> >> Thanks for the feedback Jon.
> >>
> >> I had a couple of exchanges with Rudy which is happy to contribute some
> >> code as well.
> >> From what I have understood and seen, most of the code is integration
> code
> >> and there is at least from my current knowledge a little bit of code to
> put
> >> together in a reusable manner in a reusable library (where ever it
> sits).
> >> I was planning to do a quick prototype and get it to work from end to
> end
> >> into a working branch so we can move the discussion forward and see
> exactly
> >> where we go.
> >>
> >> Regarding the signing library, I am kinda on the same page.
> >> I don't see myself rewriting Johnzon to parse JSON and then Jose or
> Nimbus
> >> to do signing. There is absolutely no point at least for the POC. Again,
> >> we'll see if I get something working what we can do.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Agreeing for a PoC but for a production ready software it is if it can
> > conflict or bring drawbacks to the users to import the solution. The json
> > lib should at least be pluggable - avoids to shade/rewrite anything but
> let
> > the integrator use what he already has. Side note for json: for the
> overall
> > consistency using JSON-P makes it easy to get a common API which doesn't
> > need any investment and solves that "plug your impl" smoothly. For the
> > signing part it is a bit different since it will easily bring a huge
> stack
> > - how many bring jackson, simple-json, ... by default and are not
> > pluggable. This is an issue and can even lead to not working
> installations.
> > If you doubt I have like 700 components to show you it is not a random or
> > theorical thought. Investment is also quite light so not sure it does
> worth
> > speaking about it days.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John D. Ament 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
>  On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the
> >>> microprofile
> > @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is
> >> the
> >>> asf
> > ee related project umbrella.
> >
> 
>  I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?
> >>>
> >>> I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at
> [1].
> >>> I had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt very
> >>> strongly we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why that
> >> is,
> >>> but it seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it
> >>> wasn't something I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within TomEE
> >> to
> >>> get a JWT impl up and running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel
> >>> strongly relying on a 3rd party lib for the actual signature
> validation +
> >>> external sig support is important; to avoid that overhead).
> >>>
> >>> RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I don't believe there's any hard or fast rules
> >>> about what projects are allowed to host.  For example, there's interest
> >>> within Skywalking to host the CDI and JAX-RS extensions to support
> >> OpenApi;
> >>> but this spec doesn't represent something any server vendor would
> support
> >>> since its really about your APM solution.  CXF happily took on the MP
> >> Rest
> >>> Client when I proposed it; though I would hope TomEE relies on the CXF
> >>> library instead of crafting their own client (selfish desires).  The
> JWT
> >>> spec is weird, because it defined non MP runtime behavior in addition
> to
> >> MP
> >>> runtime behavior; so there may be more integration work in a fuller app
> >>> server like TomEE.
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> 4edc997cfe2e45aaf25bb118bc6216
> >>> 34c2832641cf3a9d954a6f7245@%3Cdev.geronimo.apache.org%3E
> >>>
> 
> 
> >
> > I understand it is not the most convenient for tomitribe which
> >> probably
> > perfers to own the full project(s) but as a foundation member I d
> >>> really
> > like to not let company details pollute projects
> 
> 
> > Also the 

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Mark Struberg]

I know JWT a bit and I wonder whether doing the signing part is just a bit of 
Json (JSON-P) + commons-crypto?
After all JWT is especially designed to be lightweight and straight forward.

LieGrue,
strub



> Am 13.02.2018 um 15:33 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> 2018-02-13 15:28 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> 
>> Thanks for the feedback Jon.
>> 
>> I had a couple of exchanges with Rudy which is happy to contribute some
>> code as well.
>> From what I have understood and seen, most of the code is integration code
>> and there is at least from my current knowledge a little bit of code to put
>> together in a reusable manner in a reusable library (where ever it sits).
>> I was planning to do a quick prototype and get it to work from end to end
>> into a working branch so we can move the discussion forward and see exactly
>> where we go.
>> 
>> Regarding the signing library, I am kinda on the same page.
>> I don't see myself rewriting Johnzon to parse JSON and then Jose or Nimbus
>> to do signing. There is absolutely no point at least for the POC. Again,
>> we'll see if I get something working what we can do.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Agreeing for a PoC but for a production ready software it is if it can
> conflict or bring drawbacks to the users to import the solution. The json
> lib should at least be pluggable - avoids to shade/rewrite anything but let
> the integrator use what he already has. Side note for json: for the overall
> consistency using JSON-P makes it easy to get a common API which doesn't
> need any investment and solves that "plug your impl" smoothly. For the
> signing part it is a bit different since it will easily bring a huge stack
> - how many bring jackson, simple-json, ... by default and are not
> pluggable. This is an issue and can even lead to not working installations.
> If you doubt I have like 700 components to show you it is not a random or
> theorical thought. Investment is also quite light so not sure it does worth
> speaking about it days.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore >> 
>>> wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the
>>> microprofile
> @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is
>> the
>>> asf
> ee related project umbrella.
> 
 
 I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?
>>> 
>>> I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at [1].
>>> I had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt very
>>> strongly we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why that
>> is,
>>> but it seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it
>>> wasn't something I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within TomEE
>> to
>>> get a JWT impl up and running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel
>>> strongly relying on a 3rd party lib for the actual signature validation +
>>> external sig support is important; to avoid that overhead).
>>> 
>>> RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I don't believe there's any hard or fast rules
>>> about what projects are allowed to host.  For example, there's interest
>>> within Skywalking to host the CDI and JAX-RS extensions to support
>> OpenApi;
>>> but this spec doesn't represent something any server vendor would support
>>> since its really about your APM solution.  CXF happily took on the MP
>> Rest
>>> Client when I proposed it; though I would hope TomEE relies on the CXF
>>> library instead of crafting their own client (selfish desires).  The JWT
>>> spec is weird, because it defined non MP runtime behavior in addition to
>> MP
>>> runtime behavior; so there may be more integration work in a fuller app
>>> server like TomEE.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4edc997cfe2e45aaf25bb118bc6216
>>> 34c2832641cf3a9d954a6f7245@%3Cdev.geronimo.apache.org%3E
>>> 
 
 
> 
> I understand it is not the most convenient for tomitribe which
>> probably
> perfers to own the full project(s) but as a foundation member I d
>>> really
> like to not let company details pollute projects
 
 
> Also the discussion made clear to not do it in current repo whatever
> project is used as umbrella so we should revert that and finish the
> discussion before any action to not kill tomee project by a hard
>>> company
> driven management making it no more in the OSS spirit.
> 
 
 I agree the discussion should happen first, and I note that the change
>>> has
 been reverted. I recall that we agreed on this list that we'd create
>> new
 git projects 

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2018-02-13 15:28 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro :

> Thanks for the feedback Jon.
>
> I had a couple of exchanges with Rudy which is happy to contribute some
> code as well.
> From what I have understood and seen, most of the code is integration code
> and there is at least from my current knowledge a little bit of code to put
> together in a reusable manner in a reusable library (where ever it sits).
> I was planning to do a quick prototype and get it to work from end to end
> into a working branch so we can move the discussion forward and see exactly
> where we go.
>
> Regarding the signing library, I am kinda on the same page.
> I don't see myself rewriting Johnzon to parse JSON and then Jose or Nimbus
> to do signing. There is absolutely no point at least for the POC. Again,
> we'll see if I get something working what we can do.
>
>
>
Agreeing for a PoC but for a production ready software it is if it can
conflict or bring drawbacks to the users to import the solution. The json
lib should at least be pluggable - avoids to shade/rewrite anything but let
the integrator use what he already has. Side note for json: for the overall
consistency using JSON-P makes it easy to get a common API which doesn't
need any investment and solves that "plug your impl" smoothly. For the
signing part it is a bit different since it will easily bring a huge stack
- how many bring jackson, simple-json, ... by default and are not
pluggable. This is an issue and can even lead to not working installations.
If you doubt I have like 700 components to show you it is not a random or
theorical thought. Investment is also quite light so not sure it does worth
speaking about it days.


>
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore  >
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the
> > microprofile
> > > > @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is
> the
> > asf
> > > > ee related project umbrella.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?
> >
> > I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at [1].
> > I had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt very
> > strongly we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why that
> is,
> > but it seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it
> > wasn't something I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within TomEE
> to
> > get a JWT impl up and running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel
> > strongly relying on a 3rd party lib for the actual signature validation +
> > external sig support is important; to avoid that overhead).
> >
> > RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I don't believe there's any hard or fast rules
> > about what projects are allowed to host.  For example, there's interest
> > within Skywalking to host the CDI and JAX-RS extensions to support
> OpenApi;
> > but this spec doesn't represent something any server vendor would support
> > since its really about your APM solution.  CXF happily took on the MP
> Rest
> > Client when I proposed it; though I would hope TomEE relies on the CXF
> > library instead of crafting their own client (selfish desires).  The JWT
> > spec is weird, because it defined non MP runtime behavior in addition to
> MP
> > runtime behavior; so there may be more integration work in a fuller app
> > server like TomEE.
> >
> > 
> >
> > John
> >
> > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4edc997cfe2e45aaf25bb118bc6216
> > 34c2832641cf3a9d954a6f7245@%3Cdev.geronimo.apache.org%3E
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I understand it is not the most convenient for tomitribe which
> probably
> > > > perfers to own the full project(s) but as a foundation member I d
> > really
> > > > like to not let company details pollute projects
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also the discussion made clear to not do it in current repo whatever
> > > > project is used as umbrella so we should revert that and finish the
> > > > discussion before any action to not kill tomee project by a hard
> > company
> > > > driven management making it no more in the OSS spirit.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree the discussion should happen first, and I note that the change
> > has
> > > been reverted. I recall that we agreed on this list that we'd create
> new
> > > git projects for Sheldon and Chatterbox under the TomEE umbrella.
> Should
> > > other components sit under TomEE, I imagine that they would follow the
> > same
> > > pattern - i.e. discuss first, agree location, create repo or move
> things
> > > around as appropriate.
> > >
> > > I don't know what your specific issues are here, but I think you are
> > 

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Thanks for the feedback Jon.

I had a couple of exchanges with Rudy which is happy to contribute some
code as well.
>From what I have understood and seen, most of the code is integration code
and there is at least from my current knowledge a little bit of code to put
together in a reusable manner in a reusable library (where ever it sits).
I was planning to do a quick prototype and get it to work from end to end
into a working branch so we can move the discussion forward and see exactly
where we go.

Regarding the signing library, I am kinda on the same page.
I don't see myself rewriting Johnzon to parse JSON and then Jose or Nimbus
to do signing. There is absolutely no point at least for the POC. Again,
we'll see if I get something working what we can do.





--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

>
>
> On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the
> microprofile
> > > @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is the
> asf
> > > ee related project umbrella.
> > >
> >
> > I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?
>
> I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at [1].
> I had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt very
> strongly we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why that is,
> but it seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it
> wasn't something I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within TomEE to
> get a JWT impl up and running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel
> strongly relying on a 3rd party lib for the actual signature validation +
> external sig support is important; to avoid that overhead).
>
> RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I don't believe there's any hard or fast rules
> about what projects are allowed to host.  For example, there's interest
> within Skywalking to host the CDI and JAX-RS extensions to support OpenApi;
> but this spec doesn't represent something any server vendor would support
> since its really about your APM solution.  CXF happily took on the MP Rest
> Client when I proposed it; though I would hope TomEE relies on the CXF
> library instead of crafting their own client (selfish desires).  The JWT
> spec is weird, because it defined non MP runtime behavior in addition to MP
> runtime behavior; so there may be more integration work in a fuller app
> server like TomEE.
>
> 
>
> John
>
> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4edc997cfe2e45aaf25bb118bc6216
> 34c2832641cf3a9d954a6f7245@%3Cdev.geronimo.apache.org%3E
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I understand it is not the most convenient for tomitribe which probably
> > > perfers to own the full project(s) but as a foundation member I d
> really
> > > like to not let company details pollute projects
> >
> >
> > > Also the discussion made clear to not do it in current repo whatever
> > > project is used as umbrella so we should revert that and finish the
> > > discussion before any action to not kill tomee project by a hard
> company
> > > driven management making it no more in the OSS spirit.
> > >
> >
> > I agree the discussion should happen first, and I note that the change
> has
> > been reverted. I recall that we agreed on this list that we'd create new
> > git projects for Sheldon and Chatterbox under the TomEE umbrella. Should
> > other components sit under TomEE, I imagine that they would follow the
> same
> > pattern - i.e. discuss first, agree location, create repo or move things
> > around as appropriate.
> >
> > I don't know what your specific issues are here, but I think you are
> making
> > some assumptions that are simply not true.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Le 12 févr. 2018 21:14, "Andy Gumbrecht"  a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > "Parts of the components skeletons you just created"
> > > >
> > > > They're just logically named empty modules for pending work?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/02/18 20:42, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> And what's that for?
> > > >>
> > > >> Is there any behind the scene stuff going on at Tomitribe or can we
> > > >> finally get back to discussing such things on the Apache lists?
> > > >>
> > > >> Before we go on I'd would first finish the discussion how we want to
> > > turn
> > > >> TomEE into an umbrella project or how the structure would be. And
> > > >> whether/how we want to integrate the modular Geronimo parts into one
> > > >> project or not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Parts of the components skeletons you just created do already exist
> at
> > > >> the ASF.
> > > >>
> > > >> LieGrue,
> > > >> strub
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Monday, 12 February 2018, 20:22:53 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > > >> 

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2018-02-13 12:43 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament :

>
>
> On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the
> microprofile
> > > @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is the
> asf
> > > ee related project umbrella.
> > >
> >
> > I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?
>
> I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at [1].
> I had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt very
> strongly we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why that is,
> but it seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it
> wasn't something I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within TomEE to
> get a JWT impl up and running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel
> strongly relying on a 3rd party lib for the actual signature validation +
> external sig support is important; to avoid that overhead).
>
>
Was more referring to the discussion on the umbrella project and effort
aggregator than jwt spec in particular. This is the discussion Mark spoke
about in the other thread.


> RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I don't believe there's any hard or fast rules
> about what projects are allowed to host.  For example, there's interest
> within Skywalking to host the CDI and JAX-RS extensions to support OpenApi;
> but this spec doesn't represent something any server vendor would support
> since its really about your APM solution.  CXF happily took on the MP Rest
> Client when I proposed it; though I would hope TomEE relies on the CXF
> library instead of crafting their own client (selfish desires).  The JWT
> spec is weird, because it defined non MP runtime behavior in addition to MP
> runtime behavior; so there may be more integration work in a fuller app
> server like TomEE.
>

Yep, rule was more to try to put it where it fits naturally (like you did
for cxf) and if there is no natural home put it in the umbrella project
which is G today.
The dependency point is something we can discuss, my rational was 1. to
avoid conflicts which will happen with jjwt, jose etc... (you can also say
"happens" if you consider cxf ecosystem and usages) and 2. avoid to build a
200M server for that few features. Since this code is pretty simple I would
do it from scratch but a well configured shade can be an acceptable first
step to gain time as mentionned in the discussion about fault-tolerance.


>
> 
>
> John
>
> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4edc997cfe2e45aaf25bb118bc6216
> 34c2832641cf3a9d954a6f7245@%3Cdev.geronimo.apache.org%3E
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I understand it is not the most convenient for tomitribe which probably
> > > perfers to own the full project(s) but as a foundation member I d
> really
> > > like to not let company details pollute projects
> >
> >
> > > Also the discussion made clear to not do it in current repo whatever
> > > project is used as umbrella so we should revert that and finish the
> > > discussion before any action to not kill tomee project by a hard
> company
> > > driven management making it no more in the OSS spirit.
> > >
> >
> > I agree the discussion should happen first, and I note that the change
> has
> > been reverted. I recall that we agreed on this list that we'd create new
> > git projects for Sheldon and Chatterbox under the TomEE umbrella. Should
> > other components sit under TomEE, I imagine that they would follow the
> same
> > pattern - i.e. discuss first, agree location, create repo or move things
> > around as appropriate.
> >
> > I don't know what your specific issues are here, but I think you are
> making
> > some assumptions that are simply not true.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Le 12 févr. 2018 21:14, "Andy Gumbrecht"  a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > "Parts of the components skeletons you just created"
> > > >
> > > > They're just logically named empty modules for pending work?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/02/18 20:42, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> And what's that for?
> > > >>
> > > >> Is there any behind the scene stuff going on at Tomitribe or can we
> > > >> finally get back to discussing such things on the Apache lists?
> > > >>
> > > >> Before we go on I'd would first finish the discussion how we want to
> > > turn
> > > >> TomEE into an umbrella project or how the structure would be. And
> > > >> whether/how we want to integrate the modular Geronimo parts into one
> > > >> project or not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Parts of the components skeletons you just created do already exist
> at
> > > >> the ASF.
> > > >>
> > > >> LieGrue,
> > > >> strub
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Monday, 12 February 2018, 20:22:53 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > > >> agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Added project stubs:
> > > >> 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

I knew there was something.
Thanks for the gitbox info

Le 13 févr. 2018 12:26, "John D. Ament"  a écrit :



On 2018/02/13 09:29:37, Romain Manni-Bucau  wrote:
> side note: we don't need to go through asf@incubator here, the vote passed
> and the project can be imported as soon as the repos are created by infra.
> The only thing to take care (and a lot) is to make clear tomitribe gives
> (donates) this code to asf. A public message on a list is generally good
> and a commit done by a tomitribe member are enough in general.

All code donations need to have IP Clearances filed & voted upon.  So yes,
there's something you need to do in the Incubator.

>
> In other words: let just that happen :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> 
>
> 2018-02-13 10:27 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
>
> > Yes, looking at the steps now. I will ping you later for more guidance.
At
> > first glance, It looks like a very complex process. It's a good learning
> > opportunity.
> > Thanks man.
> >
> > []s,
> > Thiago
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
> > >
> > > Can you look at the other steps?
> > > I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So I'll
> > need
> > > to document myself as well.
> > >
> > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
écrit
> > :
> > >
> > > > Awesome!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks guys.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> > > > incubator work.
> > > >
> > > > []s,
> > > > Thiago.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Thiago.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs
some
> > > > > paperwork for IP clearance.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo
instead
> > > of
> > > > > the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit
> > happy
> > > > to
> > > > > change if the community thinks it's better.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects
> > > ready
> > > > > for review.
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
> > > écrit
> > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack
Java EE
> > > > JCA,
> > > > > > aren't they?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having
these
> > > guys
> > > > > > there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > > > chatterbox
> > > > > >
> > > > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > > > sheldon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org
and
> > > > maven
> > > > > > central without going through yet another project configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into
their
> > > own
> > > > > top
> > > > > > project, we can do that later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > []s,
> > > > > > Thiago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg
> > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > > > > > > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > > > > > > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history
> > lections
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was
NOT a
> > > > good
> > > > > > > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine
on
> > > > > Mojarra
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to
join
> > > > forces
> > > > > > > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to
> > remove
> > > > any
> > > > > > > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > > > > > > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most
likely
> > be
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this
does
> > > not
> > > > > > > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part
which
> > is
> > > > > > > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE
specific.
> > In
> > > > any
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > we must be sure which route we want 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[John D . Ament]

On 2018/02/13 09:15:54, Jean-Louis Monteiro  wrote: 
> I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
> 

No infra ticket required.  Git repos are fully self serve:

git-wip-us hosted repos are requested via https://selfserve.apache.org/
gitbox hosted repos are requested via 
https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/newrepo.html

> Can you look at the other steps?
> I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So I'll need
> to document myself as well.
> 
> Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit :
> 
> > Awesome!
> >
> > Thanks guys.
> >
> > Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> > incubator work.
> >
> > []s,
> > Thiago.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Thiago.
> > >
> > > I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs some
> > > paperwork for IP clearance.
> > >
> > > I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo instead of
> > > the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit happy
> > to
> > > change if the community thinks it's better.
> > >
> > > If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects ready
> > > for review.
> > >
> > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit
> > :
> > >
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> > > >
> > > > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE
> > JCA,
> > > > aren't they?
> > > >
> > > > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these guys
> > > > there?
> > > >
> > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > chatterbox
> > > >
> > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > sheldon
> > > >
> > > > We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and
> > maven
> > > > central without going through yet another project configuration.
> > > >
> > > > If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their own
> > > top
> > > > project, we can do that later.
> > > >
> > > > []s,
> > > > Thiago.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg
> >  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > > > > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > > > > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections
> > > then
> > > > > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a
> > good
> > > > > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on
> > > Mojarra
> > > > we
> > > > > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join
> > forces
> > > > > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove
> > any
> > > > > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > > > > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be
> > > > exactly
> > > > > the same.
> > > > > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does not
> > > > > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
> > > > > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In
> > any
> > > > case
> > > > > we must be sure which route we want to take.
> > > > > LieGrue,strub
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  One per project
> > > > >
> > > > > And no need of tomee in the name ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and
> > chatterbox.git
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or one
> > > > with
> > > > > > everything inside?
> > > > > > If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That would make
> > > > > > tomee git repo
> > > > > > tomee-sheldon git repo
> > > > > > tomee-chatterbox git repo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > just plain new git repos IMHO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > > > > >  | Old Blog
> > > > > > >  | Github  > > > > > > rmannibucau> |
> > > > > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > > > > > 

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

[John D . Ament]

On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore  
wrote: 
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> 
> > No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the microprofile
> > @asf. This is why jwt should probably be done in geronimo which is the asf
> > ee related project umbrella.
> >
> 
> I don't recall that discussion. Where did it take place?

I *think* he meant me.  The only time JWT came up on Geronimo was at [1].  I 
had mentioned bringing over an impl based on Jose4J, Romain felt very strongly 
we mustn't rely on 3rd party libraries.  I'm not sure why that is, but it 
seemed based on the discussion we had two different aims so it wasn't something 
I pushed forward on.  If there's interest within TomEE to get a JWT impl up and 
running, I'd be happy to help (though I do feel strongly relying on a 3rd party 
lib for the actual signature validation + external sig support is important; to 
avoid that overhead).

RE MP @ TomEE/Geronimo.  I don't believe there's any hard or fast rules about 
what projects are allowed to host.  For example, there's interest within 
Skywalking to host the CDI and JAX-RS extensions to support OpenApi; but this 
spec doesn't represent something any server vendor would support since its 
really about your APM solution.  CXF happily took on the MP Rest Client when I 
proposed it; though I would hope TomEE relies on the CXF library instead of 
crafting their own client (selfish desires).  The JWT spec is weird, because it 
defined non MP runtime behavior in addition to MP runtime behavior; so there 
may be more integration work in a fuller app server like TomEE.



John

[1]: 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4edc997cfe2e45aaf25bb118bc621634c2832641cf3a9d954a6f7245@%3Cdev.geronimo.apache.org%3E

> 
> 
> >
> > I understand it is not the most convenient for tomitribe which probably
> > perfers to own the full project(s) but as a foundation member I d really
> > like to not let company details pollute projects
> 
> 
> > Also the discussion made clear to not do it in current repo whatever
> > project is used as umbrella so we should revert that and finish the
> > discussion before any action to not kill tomee project by a hard company
> > driven management making it no more in the OSS spirit.
> >
> 
> I agree the discussion should happen first, and I note that the change has
> been reverted. I recall that we agreed on this list that we'd create new
> git projects for Sheldon and Chatterbox under the TomEE umbrella. Should
> other components sit under TomEE, I imagine that they would follow the same
> pattern - i.e. discuss first, agree location, create repo or move things
> around as appropriate.
> 
> I don't know what your specific issues are here, but I think you are making
> some assumptions that are simply not true.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Le 12 févr. 2018 21:14, "Andy Gumbrecht"  a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > "Parts of the components skeletons you just created"
> > >
> > > They're just logically named empty modules for pending work?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/02/18 20:42, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >
> > >> And what's that for?
> > >>
> > >> Is there any behind the scene stuff going on at Tomitribe or can we
> > >> finally get back to discussing such things on the Apache lists?
> > >>
> > >> Before we go on I'd would first finish the discussion how we want to
> > turn
> > >> TomEE into an umbrella project or how the structure would be. And
> > >> whether/how we want to integrate the modular Geronimo parts into one
> > >> project or not.
> > >>
> > >> Parts of the components skeletons you just created do already exist at
> > >> the ASF.
> > >>
> > >> LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Monday, 12 February 2018, 20:22:53 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > >> agumbre...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Added project stubs:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/microprofile
> > >>
> > >> Andy.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 05/02/18 11:17, Jean-Louis Monteiro wrote:
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > Ok thanks guys.
> > >> > @Rudy, you are most welcome :)
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > >> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > >> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> > >> rdebussc...@gmail.com >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I think it is a very important spec, also for non-microprofile
> > >> >> implementations as it can enhance the interoperability of all
> > servers.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm also very interested in the implementation (and want to help a
> > bit
> > >> with
> > >> >> it also :) )
> > >> >>
> > >> >> regards
> > >> >> Rudy
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 2 February 2018 at 11:23, Mark Struberg  > >> >
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> To clarify 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Thiago Veronezi]

Ok,

iCLA is all set as everyone is asf committer. I guess the only thing
missing is the IP paperwork. Jean-Louis, is there anything I can do to help
us get this boring stuff ready?

[]s,
Thiago.


On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> Yes, all the committers on those projects of course need to have an iCLA
> on file.
> And the PMC has to do an IP clearance. Once that's done it's fine to
> directly import it over here.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> PS: at OWB it was a bit different: with Meecrowave it was basically moving
> parts which existed in OWB since the incubation in 2008 (OWB bundled with
> tomcat) to an own project because it has a different lifecycle.
>
>
> > Am 13.02.2018 um 10:47 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > Yes, this doesn't apply for *sub*projects. Karaf, OpenWebBeans, ... are
> > examples doing that without any issues. Also the fact the license - even
> if
> > not explicit with a LICENSE file but only headers - is asf v2 in all
> > projects helps to smooth that procedure. So public
> > donation+license+subproject = no need to go through headaches IMHO.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | Book
> >  ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> > 2018-02-13 10:43 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
> >
> >> Are you sure we don't need the incubator? I know that Tomcat has
> multiple
> >> github repositories, but they are simple mirrors of the same svn
> repository
> >> on different branches (tc7, tc8 etc).
> >>
> >> From https://incubator.apache.org/faq.html I get this...
> >>
> >> "
> >> 1.4. Someone has proposed that their code/project be donated to project
> X
> >> within the ASF for continued development. What do we need to do to
> accept
> >> the code?
> >>
> >> The Incubator will only accept code for incubation if a PMC has voted to
> >> accept it. So when a proposal for the donation of code occurs, the
> project
> >> in question should discuss the proposal (usually on their public mailing
> >> lists!), leading to a decision by that project’s PMC on whether or not
> to
> >> sponsor the code (and potentially the project surrounding it). If the
> PMC
> >> agrees, then the incubator can be approached, and the code accepted for
> >> incubation. The grant needs to be recorded by following the procedure
> >> outlined at the IP Clearance forms
> >> .
> >>
> >> "
> >>
> >> We passed the point of vote. The code has been accepted. Once the IP
> forms
> >> are formalized, we may start the incubation process.
> >>
> >> []s,
> >> Thiago.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> side note: we don't need to go through asf@incubator here, the vote
> >> passed
> >>> and the project can be imported as soon as the repos are created by
> >> infra.
> >>> The only thing to take care (and a lot) is to make clear tomitribe
> gives
> >>> (donates) this code to asf. A public message on a list is generally
> good
> >>> and a commit done by a tomitribe member are enough in general.
> >>>
> >>> In other words: let just that happen :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>>  | Old Blog
> >>>  | Github  >>> rmannibucau> |
> >>> LinkedIn  | Book
> >>>  >>> ee-8-high-performance>
> >>>
> >>> 2018-02-13 10:27 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
> >>>
>  Yes, looking at the steps now. I will ping you later for more
> guidance.
> >>> At
>  first glance, It looks like a very complex process. It's a good
> >> learning
>  opportunity.
>  Thanks man.
> 
>  []s,
>  Thiago
> 
> 
>  On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>  jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
> >
> > Can you look at the other steps?
> > I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So
> >> I'll
>  need
> > to document myself as well.
> >
> > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
> >>> écrit
>  :
> >
> >> Awesome!
> >>
> >> Thanks guys.
> >>
> >> Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> >> incubator work.
> >>
> >> []s,
> >> Thiago.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> >> 

Re: Let's do better

[Andy Gumbrecht]

Totally agree with you Mark. My initial response was polite as usual, I 
acknowledged my mistake and reverted quickly and explained my intention. 
Then comes the all too familiar b... slap, another one - Jean-Louis 
response is the best one, but that also can misfire - "What are you 
'f'ing doing with my car?", will instantly change the tone and you end 
up resenting the fact you even considered washing it. My problem is I 
never slap first, but I really don't respond well when I get one - It's 
the old soldier in me I guess.


I take the premise, you're standing in a bar. I'm an extremely happy 
drinker, but don't ask me "What you lookin at?" or spill my beer - In 
fact, if you do, my first response is "Excuse me?" (Diplomacy), it's the 
"I said, what are you looking at?" that tips the balance for me. I make 
an equal effort to be courteous and not spill anyone else's beer in a 
bar. If I keep getting my beer spilt then as Mark points out, find 
another pub. Only one choice for me, as I really don't want to fight. 
That doesn't mean I can't.


Andy.


On 13/02/18 10:25, Mark Struberg wrote:

It's our duty as PMC members to review committs. And of course a commit with 
the comment 'starting a thing which was decided not to be done' should spark 
EVERYONES curiosity.

All the PMC members at TomEE and Geronimo have been aware of the discussions 
and nobody said anything against putting the reusable parts at Geronimo. Au 
contraire it was widely agreed. Both the Geronimo PMC and also the TomEE PMC 
have been discussing this for months.

Romain and I spent lots of time to find a viable compromise which is in the 
best interest of the broader communities. This included the option of moving 
the existing Geronimo parts to TomEE. Actually whether those parts are hosted 
at TomEE or Geronimo is really a minor point. After all the _active_ people are 
the same in both projects anyway.

Andy made his intent clear now, I applogized. And I don't feel bad for it. 
Because it was very important to clarify the situation.

LieGrue,
strub



Am 13.02.2018 um 09:52 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :

Morning Mark,

I appreciate the feedback, but I disagree.

Adding an @Ignore on a test failing does not fix the issue (either the test
or the code)
Putting a napkin over some c... does not clean it up.

This is not the first time it happens, so I'd rather prefer the community
to vent, put the problems on the table so we can tackle them, instead of
pretending the problem is solved and in one month from now, we are in the
same position.

I do not plan to put fuel on the fire.

I'm suggesting that instead of shooting at the daughter and therefor not
getting any chance to know it was a present, one should first ask
questions.
"My sweet heart, why do you have the keys of the car?"
"What do you plan to do with them?"

I was trying to add some guidance to your good example of the daughter and
her father.

You are a father, so am I.

Hope it helps.



--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:


Please all stop putting fuel into the fire.

LieGrue,
strub



Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <

jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:

Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.

Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
écrit :


+1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping

from

the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender

theoreme

anyone?).
And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
thus prone to be misinterpreted.

The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference

in

view.
And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish.

We

are all just passionate.
So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.

For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
done in other ASF projects.
And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
Server but to be reusable for other projects.
Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
about the TomEE project as governance body.

I also had an important lesson in the 90s:

If you have a problem
1.) solve it
2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.

More generally:
There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.

In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
It was simply a misunderstanding.
Andy wanted to commit samples and 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Mark Struberg]

Yes, all the committers on those projects of course need to have an iCLA on 
file.
And the PMC has to do an IP clearance. Once that's done it's fine to directly 
import it over here.

LieGrue,
strub


PS: at OWB it was a bit different: with Meecrowave it was basically moving 
parts which existed in OWB since the incubation in 2008 (OWB bundled with 
tomcat) to an own project because it has a different lifecycle.


> Am 13.02.2018 um 10:47 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> Yes, this doesn't apply for *sub*projects. Karaf, OpenWebBeans, ... are
> examples doing that without any issues. Also the fact the license - even if
> not explicit with a LICENSE file but only headers - is asf v2 in all
> projects helps to smooth that procedure. So public
> donation+license+subproject = no need to go through headaches IMHO.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> 
> 
> 2018-02-13 10:43 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
> 
>> Are you sure we don't need the incubator? I know that Tomcat has multiple
>> github repositories, but they are simple mirrors of the same svn repository
>> on different branches (tc7, tc8 etc).
>> 
>> From https://incubator.apache.org/faq.html I get this...
>> 
>> "
>> 1.4. Someone has proposed that their code/project be donated to project X
>> within the ASF for continued development. What do we need to do to accept
>> the code?
>> 
>> The Incubator will only accept code for incubation if a PMC has voted to
>> accept it. So when a proposal for the donation of code occurs, the project
>> in question should discuss the proposal (usually on their public mailing
>> lists!), leading to a decision by that project’s PMC on whether or not to
>> sponsor the code (and potentially the project surrounding it). If the PMC
>> agrees, then the incubator can be approached, and the code accepted for
>> incubation. The grant needs to be recorded by following the procedure
>> outlined at the IP Clearance forms
>> .
>> 
>> "
>> 
>> We passed the point of vote. The code has been accepted. Once the IP forms
>> are formalized, we may start the incubation process.
>> 
>> []s,
>> Thiago.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> side note: we don't need to go through asf@incubator here, the vote
>> passed
>>> and the project can be imported as soon as the repos are created by
>> infra.
>>> The only thing to take care (and a lot) is to make clear tomitribe gives
>>> (donates) this code to asf. A public message on a list is generally good
>>> and a commit done by a tomitribe member are enough in general.
>>> 
>>> In other words: let just that happen :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Blog
>>>  | Github >> rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn  | Book
>>> >> ee-8-high-performance>
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-13 10:27 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
>>> 
 Yes, looking at the steps now. I will ping you later for more guidance.
>>> At
 first glance, It looks like a very complex process. It's a good
>> learning
 opportunity.
 Thanks man.
 
 []s,
 Thiago
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
 jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
 
> I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
> 
> Can you look at the other steps?
> I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So
>> I'll
 need
> to document myself as well.
> 
> Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
>>> écrit
 :
> 
>> Awesome!
>> 
>> Thanks guys.
>> 
>> Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
>> incubator work.
>> 
>> []s,
>> Thiago.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey Thiago.
>>> 
>>> I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs
>> some
>>> paperwork for IP clearance.
>>> 
>>> I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo
>>> instead
> of
>>> the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit
 happy
>> to
>>> change if the community thinks it's better.
>>> 
>>> If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2
>> projects
> ready
>>> 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Yes, this doesn't apply for *sub*projects. Karaf, OpenWebBeans, ... are
examples doing that without any issues. Also the fact the license - even if
not explicit with a LICENSE file but only headers - is asf v2 in all
projects helps to smooth that procedure. So public
donation+license+subproject = no need to go through headaches IMHO.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book


2018-02-13 10:43 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :

> Are you sure we don't need the incubator? I know that Tomcat has multiple
> github repositories, but they are simple mirrors of the same svn repository
> on different branches (tc7, tc8 etc).
>
> From https://incubator.apache.org/faq.html I get this...
>
> "
> 1.4. Someone has proposed that their code/project be donated to project X
> within the ASF for continued development. What do we need to do to accept
> the code?
>
> The Incubator will only accept code for incubation if a PMC has voted to
> accept it. So when a proposal for the donation of code occurs, the project
> in question should discuss the proposal (usually on their public mailing
> lists!), leading to a decision by that project’s PMC on whether or not to
> sponsor the code (and potentially the project surrounding it). If the PMC
> agrees, then the incubator can be approached, and the code accepted for
> incubation. The grant needs to be recorded by following the procedure
> outlined at the IP Clearance forms
> .
>
> "
>
> We passed the point of vote. The code has been accepted. Once the IP forms
> are formalized, we may start the incubation process.
>
> []s,
> Thiago.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau  >
> wrote:
>
> > side note: we don't need to go through asf@incubator here, the vote
> passed
> > and the project can be imported as soon as the repos are created by
> infra.
> > The only thing to take care (and a lot) is to make clear tomitribe gives
> > (donates) this code to asf. A public message on a list is generally good
> > and a commit done by a tomitribe member are enough in general.
> >
> > In other words: let just that happen :)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github  > rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | Book
> >  > ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> > 2018-02-13 10:27 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
> >
> > > Yes, looking at the steps now. I will ping you later for more guidance.
> > At
> > > first glance, It looks like a very complex process. It's a good
> learning
> > > opportunity.
> > > Thanks man.
> > >
> > > []s,
> > > Thiago
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
> > > >
> > > > Can you look at the other steps?
> > > > I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So
> I'll
> > > need
> > > > to document myself as well.
> > > >
> > > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > >
> > > > > Awesome!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks guys.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> > > > > incubator work.
> > > > >
> > > > > []s,
> > > > > Thiago.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Thiago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs
> some
> > > > > > paperwork for IP clearance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo
> > instead
> > > > of
> > > > > > the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit
> > > happy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > change if the community thinks it's better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2
> projects
> > > > ready
> > > > > > for review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi" 
> a
> > > > écrit
> > > > > :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack
> Java
> > EE
> > > > > JCA,
> > > > > > > aren't they?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Thiago Veronezi]

Are you sure we don't need the incubator? I know that Tomcat has multiple
github repositories, but they are simple mirrors of the same svn repository
on different branches (tc7, tc8 etc).

>From https://incubator.apache.org/faq.html I get this...

"
1.4. Someone has proposed that their code/project be donated to project X
within the ASF for continued development. What do we need to do to accept
the code?

The Incubator will only accept code for incubation if a PMC has voted to
accept it. So when a proposal for the donation of code occurs, the project
in question should discuss the proposal (usually on their public mailing
lists!), leading to a decision by that project’s PMC on whether or not to
sponsor the code (and potentially the project surrounding it). If the PMC
agrees, then the incubator can be approached, and the code accepted for
incubation. The grant needs to be recorded by following the procedure
outlined at the IP Clearance forms
.

"

We passed the point of vote. The code has been accepted. Once the IP forms
are formalized, we may start the incubation process.

[]s,
Thiago.



On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> side note: we don't need to go through asf@incubator here, the vote passed
> and the project can be imported as soon as the repos are created by infra.
> The only thing to take care (and a lot) is to make clear tomitribe gives
> (donates) this code to asf. A public message on a list is generally good
> and a commit done by a tomitribe member are enough in general.
>
> In other words: let just that happen :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
>  ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-02-13 10:27 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
>
> > Yes, looking at the steps now. I will ping you later for more guidance.
> At
> > first glance, It looks like a very complex process. It's a good learning
> > opportunity.
> > Thanks man.
> >
> > []s,
> > Thiago
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
> > >
> > > Can you look at the other steps?
> > > I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So I'll
> > need
> > > to document myself as well.
> > >
> > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
> écrit
> > :
> > >
> > > > Awesome!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks guys.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> > > > incubator work.
> > > >
> > > > []s,
> > > > Thiago.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Thiago.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs some
> > > > > paperwork for IP clearance.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit
> > happy
> > > > to
> > > > > change if the community thinks it's better.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects
> > > ready
> > > > > for review.
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
> > > écrit
> > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java
> EE
> > > > JCA,
> > > > > > aren't they?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these
> > > guys
> > > > > > there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > > > chatterbox
> > > > > >
> > > > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > > > sheldon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org
> and
> > > > maven
> > > > > > central without going through yet another project configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into
> their
> > > own
> > > > > top
> > > > > > project, we can do that later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > []s,
> > > > > > Thiago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg
> > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > > > > > > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > > > > > > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history
> > lections
> > > > > then
> > > 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

side note: we don't need to go through asf@incubator here, the vote passed
and the project can be imported as soon as the repos are created by infra.
The only thing to take care (and a lot) is to make clear tomitribe gives
(donates) this code to asf. A public message on a list is generally good
and a commit done by a tomitribe member are enough in general.

In other words: let just that happen :)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book


2018-02-13 10:27 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :

> Yes, looking at the steps now. I will ping you later for more guidance. At
> first glance, It looks like a very complex process. It's a good learning
> opportunity.
> Thanks man.
>
> []s,
> Thiago
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
> >
> > Can you look at the other steps?
> > I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So I'll
> need
> > to document myself as well.
> >
> > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit
> :
> >
> > > Awesome!
> > >
> > > Thanks guys.
> > >
> > > Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> > > incubator work.
> > >
> > > []s,
> > > Thiago.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Thiago.
> > > >
> > > > I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs some
> > > > paperwork for IP clearance.
> > > >
> > > > I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo instead
> > of
> > > > the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit
> happy
> > > to
> > > > change if the community thinks it's better.
> > > >
> > > > If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects
> > ready
> > > > for review.
> > > >
> > > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE
> > > JCA,
> > > > > aren't they?
> > > > >
> > > > > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these
> > guys
> > > > > there?
> > > > >
> > > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > > chatterbox
> > > > >
> > > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > > sheldon
> > > > >
> > > > > We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and
> > > maven
> > > > > central without going through yet another project configuration.
> > > > >
> > > > > If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their
> > own
> > > > top
> > > > > project, we can do that later.
> > > > >
> > > > > []s,
> > > > > Thiago.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg
> > >  > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > > > > > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > > > > > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history
> lections
> > > > then
> > > > > > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a
> > > good
> > > > > > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on
> > > > Mojarra
> > > > > we
> > > > > > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join
> > > forces
> > > > > > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to
> remove
> > > any
> > > > > > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > > > > > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely
> be
> > > > > exactly
> > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does
> > not
> > > > > > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which
> is
> > > > > > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific.
> In
> > > any
> > > > > case
> > > > > > we must be sure which route we want to take.
> > > > > > LieGrue,strub
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <
> > > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  One per project
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And no need of tomee in the name ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and
> > > chatterbox.git
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or
> > one
> > > > > with

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Thiago Veronezi]

Yes, looking at the steps now. I will ping you later for more guidance. At
first glance, It looks like a very complex process. It's a good learning
opportunity.
Thanks man.

[]s,
Thiago


On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:

> I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.
>
> Can you look at the other steps?
> I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So I'll need
> to document myself as well.
>
> Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit :
>
> > Awesome!
> >
> > Thanks guys.
> >
> > Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> > incubator work.
> >
> > []s,
> > Thiago.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Thiago.
> > >
> > > I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs some
> > > paperwork for IP clearance.
> > >
> > > I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo instead
> of
> > > the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit happy
> > to
> > > change if the community thinks it's better.
> > >
> > > If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects
> ready
> > > for review.
> > >
> > > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a
> écrit
> > :
> > >
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> > > >
> > > > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE
> > JCA,
> > > > aren't they?
> > > >
> > > > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these
> guys
> > > > there?
> > > >
> > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > chatterbox
> > > >
> > > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > > sheldon
> > > >
> > > > We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and
> > maven
> > > > central without going through yet another project configuration.
> > > >
> > > > If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their
> own
> > > top
> > > > project, we can do that later.
> > > >
> > > > []s,
> > > > Thiago.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg
> >  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > > > > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > > > > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections
> > > then
> > > > > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a
> > good
> > > > > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on
> > > Mojarra
> > > > we
> > > > > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join
> > forces
> > > > > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove
> > any
> > > > > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > > > > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be
> > > > exactly
> > > > > the same.
> > > > > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does
> not
> > > > > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
> > > > > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In
> > any
> > > > case
> > > > > we must be sure which route we want to take.
> > > > > LieGrue,strub
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  One per project
> > > > >
> > > > > And no need of tomee in the name ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and
> > chatterbox.git
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or
> one
> > > > with
> > > > > > everything inside?
> > > > > > If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That would make
> > > > > > tomee git repo
> > > > > > tomee-sheldon git repo
> > > > > > tomee-chatterbox git repo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > just plain new git repos IMHO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > > > > >  | Old Blog
> > > > > > >  | Github <
> https://github.com/
> > > > > > > rmannibucau> |
> > > > > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > > > > >  > > 

Re: Let's do better

[Mark Struberg]

It's our duty as PMC members to review committs. And of course a commit with 
the comment 'starting a thing which was decided not to be done' should spark 
EVERYONES curiosity.

All the PMC members at TomEE and Geronimo have been aware of the discussions 
and nobody said anything against putting the reusable parts at Geronimo. Au 
contraire it was widely agreed. Both the Geronimo PMC and also the TomEE PMC 
have been discussing this for months.

Romain and I spent lots of time to find a viable compromise which is in the 
best interest of the broader communities. This included the option of moving 
the existing Geronimo parts to TomEE. Actually whether those parts are hosted 
at TomEE or Geronimo is really a minor point. After all the _active_ people are 
the same in both projects anyway.

Andy made his intent clear now, I applogized. And I don't feel bad for it. 
Because it was very important to clarify the situation. 

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 13.02.2018 um 09:52 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> 
> Morning Mark,
> 
> I appreciate the feedback, but I disagree.
> 
> Adding an @Ignore on a test failing does not fix the issue (either the test
> or the code)
> Putting a napkin over some c... does not clean it up.
> 
> This is not the first time it happens, so I'd rather prefer the community
> to vent, put the problems on the table so we can tackle them, instead of
> pretending the problem is solved and in one month from now, we are in the
> same position.
> 
> I do not plan to put fuel on the fire.
> 
> I'm suggesting that instead of shooting at the daughter and therefor not
> getting any chance to know it was a present, one should first ask
> questions.
> "My sweet heart, why do you have the keys of the car?"
> "What do you plan to do with them?"
> 
> I was trying to add some guidance to your good example of the daughter and
> her father.
> 
> You are a father, so am I.
> 
> Hope it helps.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> Please all stop putting fuel into the fire.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
>>> 
>>> Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
>>> all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.
>>> 
>>> Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
>>> écrit :
>>> 
 +1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping
>> from
 the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender
>> theoreme
 anyone?).
 And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
 thus prone to be misinterpreted.
 
 The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference
>> in
 view.
 And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish.
>> We
 are all just passionate.
 So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.
 
 For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
 done in other ASF projects.
 And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
 Server but to be reusable for other projects.
 Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
 about the TomEE project as governance body.
 
 I also had an important lesson in the 90s:
 
 If you have a problem
 1.) solve it
 2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
 3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.
 
 More generally:
 There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
 There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
 we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
 And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
 compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.
 
 In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
 It was simply a misunderstanding.
 Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
 This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very
 easy to get misinterpreted.
 And that's exactly what happens.
 
 That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she
>> snatches
 your keys.
 You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out
>> that
 she only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...
 
 And now back to work pretty please ;)
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
> 
> All,
> 
> I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in
 the
> past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been
 there
> thousands of 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

I'll create the tickets for infra so we have the repos ready.

Can you look at the other steps?
I'm not very familiar with the steps in case of code donation. So I'll need
to document myself as well.

Le 13 févr. 2018 10:10, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit :

> Awesome!
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
> incubator work.
>
> []s,
> Thiago.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Thiago.
> >
> > I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs some
> > paperwork for IP clearance.
> >
> > I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo instead of
> > the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit happy
> to
> > change if the community thinks it's better.
> >
> > If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects ready
> > for review.
> >
> > Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit
> :
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> > >
> > > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE
> JCA,
> > > aren't they?
> > >
> > > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these guys
> > > there?
> > >
> > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > chatterbox
> > >
> > > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > > sheldon
> > >
> > > We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and
> maven
> > > central without going through yet another project configuration.
> > >
> > > If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their own
> > top
> > > project, we can do that later.
> > >
> > > []s,
> > > Thiago.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg
>  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > > > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > > > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections
> > then
> > > > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a
> good
> > > > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on
> > Mojarra
> > > we
> > > > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join
> forces
> > > > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove
> any
> > > > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > > > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be
> > > exactly
> > > > the same.
> > > > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does not
> > > > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
> > > > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In
> any
> > > case
> > > > we must be sure which route we want to take.
> > > > LieGrue,strub
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  One per project
> > > >
> > > > And no need of tomee in the name ;)
> > > >
> > > > we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and
> chatterbox.git
> > > >
> > > > 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or one
> > > with
> > > > > everything inside?
> > > > > If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That would make
> > > > > tomee git repo
> > > > > tomee-sheldon git repo
> > > > > tomee-chatterbox git repo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > just plain new git repos IMHO
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > > > >  | Old Blog
> > > > > >  | Github  > > > > > rmannibucau> |
> > > > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > > > >  > > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-02-05 14:21 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In terms of source code, do we want something like this
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tomee/ (the main git project)
> > > > > > > ..tomee-server/ --> no idea what name would be the best from a
> > user
> > > > > > > perspective
> > > > > > > ..sheldon/
> > > > > > > ..chatterbox/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > > 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Thiago Veronezi]

Awesome!

Thanks guys.

Thanks Jean-Louis for sort this out that fast! Count me in for the
incubator work.

[]s,
Thiago.


On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:

> Hey Thiago.
>
> I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs some
> paperwork for IP clearance.
>
> I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo instead of
> the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit happy to
> change if the community thinks it's better.
>
> If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects ready
> for review.
>
> Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit :
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
> >
> > Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE JCA,
> > aren't they?
> >
> > What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these guys
> > there?
> >
> > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > chatterbox
> >
> > com.apache.tomee.rars
> > sheldon
> >
> > We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and maven
> > central without going through yet another project configuration.
> >
> > If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their own
> top
> > project, we can do that later.
> >
> > []s,
> > Thiago.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections
> then
> > > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a good
> > > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on
> Mojarra
> > we
> > > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join forces
> > > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove any
> > > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be
> > exactly
> > > the same.
> > > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does not
> > > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
> > > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In any
> > case
> > > we must be sure which route we want to take.
> > > LieGrue,strub
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  One per project
> > >
> > > And no need of tomee in the name ;)
> > >
> > > we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and chatterbox.git
> > >
> > > 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or one
> > with
> > > > everything inside?
> > > > If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That would make
> > > > tomee git repo
> > > > tomee-sheldon git repo
> > > > tomee-chatterbox git repo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > just plain new git repos IMHO
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > > >  | Old Blog
> > > > >  | Github  > > > > rmannibucau> |
> > > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > > >  > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-02-05 14:21 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In terms of source code, do we want something like this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tomee/ (the main git project)
> > > > > > ..tomee-server/ --> no idea what name would be the best from a
> user
> > > > > > perspective
> > > > > > ..sheldon/
> > > > > > ..chatterbox/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Excellent. Happy to help with the process in any way I can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks like David is busy, so I'll close the VOTE for him and
> > > > proceed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The VOTE passes with
> > > > > 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Hey Thiago.

I have done all the change and prepared the donation. It needs some
paperwork for IP clearance.

I have followed the option where we have each in its own repo instead of
the current TomEE repo. It appeared to be more flexible to me bit happy to
change if the community thinks it's better.

If you can help with incubator and paperwork I have the 2 projects ready
for review.

Le 13 févr. 2018 10:00, "Thiago Veronezi"  a écrit :

> Hi guys,
>
> I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
>
> Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE JCA,
> aren't they?
>
> What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these guys
> there?
>
> com.apache.tomee.rars
> chatterbox
>
> com.apache.tomee.rars
> sheldon
>
> We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and maven
> central without going through yet another project configuration.
>
> If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their own top
> project, we can do that later.
>
> []s,
> Thiago.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections then
> > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a good
> > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on Mojarra
> we
> > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join forces
> > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove any
> > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be
> exactly
> > the same.
> > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does not
> > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
> > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In any
> case
> > we must be sure which route we want to take.
> > LieGrue,strub
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  One per project
> >
> > And no need of tomee in the name ;)
> >
> > we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and chatterbox.git
> >
> > 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro  >:
> >
> > > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or one
> with
> > > everything inside?
> > > If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
> > >
> > >
> > > That would make
> > > tomee git repo
> > > tomee-sheldon git repo
> > > tomee-chatterbox git repo
> > >
> > >
> > > Jean-Louis
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > just plain new git repos IMHO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > >  | Old Blog
> > > >  | Github  > > > rmannibucau> |
> > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > >  > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > >
> > > > 2018-02-05 14:21 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > In terms of source code, do we want something like this
> > > > >
> > > > > tomee/ (the main git project)
> > > > > ..tomee-server/ --> no idea what name would be the best from a user
> > > > > perspective
> > > > > ..sheldon/
> > > > > ..chatterbox/
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Excellent. Happy to help with the process in any way I can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks like David is busy, so I'll close the VOTE for him and
> > > proceed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The VOTE passes with
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1: John D. Ament, Jonathan Gallimore, Mark Struberg, Andy
> > > Gumbrecht,
> > > > > > David
> > > > > > > Blevins and Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No 0 and no -1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > non-binding +1: Matthew Broadhead, Elder Moraes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for voting
> > > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > >
> 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Mark Struberg]

technically now since TomEE is hosted in GIT we even _have to_ give them own 
repos.
Because those components will likely _not_ share the same lifecycle nor version 
number than the TomEE app server, isn't?

GIT is not SVN. You technically cannot do sparse releases from a GIT repo. It's 
always a single repo.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 13.02.2018 um 10:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> Hmm,
> 
> what does hurt letting them having their own repo? I see the benefit to
> release them more easily and let them have their own lifecycle. I also see
> the drawback of all the tomee project if we put them as submodules. However
> I fail to see what would be the advantages in this last case. What do I
> miss?
> 
> Side note: agree to put them on the same website for now, probably a
> subspace to not mix EE/Server/RAR stuff but as TomEE we have a single entry
> point which is tomee.apache.org.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> 
> 
> 2018-02-13 10:00 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :
> 
>> Hi guys,
>> 
>> I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
>> 
>> Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE JCA,
>> aren't they?
>> 
>> What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these guys
>> there?
>> 
>> com.apache.tomee.rars
>> chatterbox
>> 
>> com.apache.tomee.rars
>> sheldon
>> 
>> We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and maven
>> central without going through yet another project configuration.
>> 
>> If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their own top
>> project, we can do that later.
>> 
>> []s,
>> Thiago.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
>>> And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
>>> In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections then
>>> you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a good
>>> idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on Mojarra
>> we
>>> had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join forces
>>> with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove any
>>> doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
>>> Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be
>> exactly
>>> the same.
>>> So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does not
>>> belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
>>> portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In any
>> case
>>> we must be sure which route we want to take.
>>> LieGrue,strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>>On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> One per project
>>> 
>>> And no need of tomee in the name ;)
>>> 
>>> we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and chatterbox.git
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro >> :
>>> 
 I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or one
>> with
 everything inside?
 If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
 
 
 That would make
 tomee git repo
 tomee-sheldon git repo
 tomee-chatterbox git repo
 
 
 Jean-Louis
 
 
 --
 Jean-Louis Monteiro
 http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
 http://www.tomitribe.com
 
 On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> just plain new git repos IMHO
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
>  ee-8-high-performance>
> 
> 2018-02-05 14:21 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> :
> 
>> In terms of source code, do we want something like this
>> 
>> tomee/ (the main git project)
>> ..tomee-server/ --> no idea what name would be the best from a user
>> perspective
>> ..sheldon/
>> ..chatterbox/
>> 
>> WDYT?
>> 
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Excellent. Happy to help with the process 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hmm,

what does hurt letting them having their own repo? I see the benefit to
release them more easily and let them have their own lifecycle. I also see
the drawback of all the tomee project if we put them as submodules. However
I fail to see what would be the advantages in this last case. What do I
miss?

Side note: agree to put them on the same website for now, probably a
subspace to not mix EE/Server/RAR stuff but as TomEE we have a single entry
point which is tomee.apache.org.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book


2018-02-13 10:00 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi :

> Hi guys,
>
> I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.
>
> Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE JCA,
> aren't they?
>
> What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these guys
> there?
>
> com.apache.tomee.rars
> chatterbox
>
> com.apache.tomee.rars
> sheldon
>
> We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and maven
> central without going through yet another project configuration.
>
> If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their own top
> project, we can do that later.
>
> []s,
> Thiago.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> > And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> > In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections then
> > you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a good
> > idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on Mojarra
> we
> > had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join forces
> > with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove any
> > doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> > Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be
> exactly
> > the same.
> > So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does not
> > belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
> > portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In any
> case
> > we must be sure which route we want to take.
> > LieGrue,strub
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  One per project
> >
> > And no need of tomee in the name ;)
> >
> > we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and chatterbox.git
> >
> > 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro  >:
> >
> > > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or one
> with
> > > everything inside?
> > > If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
> > >
> > >
> > > That would make
> > > tomee git repo
> > > tomee-sheldon git repo
> > > tomee-chatterbox git repo
> > >
> > >
> > > Jean-Louis
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > just plain new git repos IMHO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > >  | Old Blog
> > > >  | Github  > > > rmannibucau> |
> > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > >  > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > >
> > > > 2018-02-05 14:21 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > In terms of source code, do we want something like this
> > > > >
> > > > > tomee/ (the main git project)
> > > > > ..tomee-server/ --> no idea what name would be the best from a user
> > > > > perspective
> > > > > ..sheldon/
> > > > > ..chatterbox/
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Excellent. Happy to help with the process in any way I can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks like David is busy, so I'll close the VOTE for him and
> > > proceed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The VOTE passes with
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1: John D. Ament, Jonathan Gallimore, Mark Struberg, Andy
> > > 

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

[Thiago Veronezi]

Hi guys,

I have some use for Chatterbox and I would like to contribute.

Sheldon and Chatterbox are examples of awesome use of stack Java EE JCA,
aren't they?

What about creating a module "resource-adapters" and having these guys
there?

com.apache.tomee.rars
chatterbox

com.apache.tomee.rars
sheldon

We would have them available for download on tomee.apache.org and maven
central without going through yet another project configuration.

If these guys grow so much that they require to be split into their own top
project, we can do that later.

[]s,
Thiago.





On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> +1 for a new github repo and 1 per project.
> And we still need a name for this 'aggregator'.
> In Myfaces it was myfaces-ext-*But if you did your history lections then
> you would have noticed that keeping myfaces in the name was NOT a good
> idea.While CODI (myfaces-ext-cdi) did also run perfectly fine on Mojarra we
> had a really huge acceptance problem. This later lead us to join forces
> with Seam and merge together to Apache DeltaSpike - just to remove any
> doubt that it will only run with MyFaces.
> Now if we would name it tomee-sheldon then it would most likely be exactly
> the same.
> So please propose a good name which makes it clear that this does not
> belong to TomEE the app server but is just a modular part which is
> portable. Or go the other route: make it really TomEE specific. In any case
> we must be sure which route we want to take.
> LieGrue,strub
>
>
> On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:06:23 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  One per project
>
> And no need of tomee in the name ;)
>
> we already have tomee.git so we can get sheldon.git and chatterbox.git
>
> 2018-02-05 14:38 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro :
>
> > I'm fine either way, do we want one per sub-project/sub-tool or one with
> > everything inside?
> > If we go this path I'm tempted to say, one per contribution.
> >
> >
> > That would make
> > tomee git repo
> > tomee-sheldon git repo
> > tomee-chatterbox git repo
> >
> >
> > Jean-Louis
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > just plain new git repos IMHO
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > >  | Old Blog
> > >  | Github  > > rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > >  > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > >
> > > 2018-02-05 14:21 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > In terms of source code, do we want something like this
> > > >
> > > > tomee/ (the main git project)
> > > > ..tomee-server/ --> no idea what name would be the best from a user
> > > > perspective
> > > > ..sheldon/
> > > > ..chatterbox/
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Excellent. Happy to help with the process in any way I can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like David is busy, so I'll close the VOTE for him and
> > proceed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The VOTE passes with
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1: John D. Ament, Jonathan Gallimore, Mark Struberg, Andy
> > Gumbrecht,
> > > > > David
> > > > > > Blevins and Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No 0 and no -1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > non-binding +1: Matthew Broadhead, Elder Moraes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for voting
> > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:52 AM, John D. Ament <
> > johndam...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you tally?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have an internal ASF use case for chatterbox that I'd like to
> > > > figure
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > the next steps on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM David Blevins <
> > > > david.blev...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ... will tally shortly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > David Blevins
> > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > 

Re: Let's do better

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Morning Mark,

I appreciate the feedback, but I disagree.

Adding an @Ignore on a test failing does not fix the issue (either the test
or the code)
Putting a napkin over some c... does not clean it up.

This is not the first time it happens, so I'd rather prefer the community
to vent, put the problems on the table so we can tackle them, instead of
pretending the problem is solved and in one month from now, we are in the
same position.

I do not plan to put fuel on the fire.

I'm suggesting that instead of shooting at the daughter and therefor not
getting any chance to know it was a present, one should first ask
questions.
"My sweet heart, why do you have the keys of the car?"
"What do you plan to do with them?"

I was trying to add some guidance to your good example of the daughter and
her father.

You are a father, so am I.

Hope it helps.



--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> Please all stop putting fuel into the fire.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
> >
> > Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
> > all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.
> >
> > Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> +1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping
> from
> >> the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender
> theoreme
> >> anyone?).
> >> And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
> >> thus prone to be misinterpreted.
> >>
> >> The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference
> in
> >> view.
> >> And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish.
> We
> >> are all just passionate.
> >> So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.
> >>
> >> For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
> >> done in other ASF projects.
> >> And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
> >> Server but to be reusable for other projects.
> >> Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
> >> about the TomEE project as governance body.
> >>
> >> I also had an important lesson in the 90s:
> >>
> >> If you have a problem
> >> 1.) solve it
> >> 2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
> >> 3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.
> >>
> >> More generally:
> >> There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
> >> There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
> >> we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
> >> And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
> >> compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.
> >>
> >> In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
> >> It was simply a misunderstanding.
> >> Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
> >> This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very
> >> easy to get misinterpreted.
> >> And that's exactly what happens.
> >>
> >> That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she
> snatches
> >> your keys.
> >> You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out
> that
> >> she only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...
> >>
> >> And now back to work pretty please ;)
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in
> >> the
> >>> past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been
> >> there
> >>> thousands of times and what I can tell for granted is that non of these
> >>> situations are neither "incidents" nor "childish".
> >>>
> >>> As a matter of fact each individual has a certain believe system on one
> >>> hand and on the other hand lives on his/her own island. The latter I
> use
> >> as
> >>> an explanation for the fact that we all have our own perception of what
> >> we
> >>> think reality is and it usually isn't congruent with the perception of
> >>> others. If either your believe systems are conflicting or your
> perception
> >>> of what you think is reality are clashing, you usually have such
> >>> "incidents".
> >>>
> >>> That said I learned the hard way that usually you are not fighting,
> like
> >> in
> >>> this case, about backed out code but it's usually something
> >> inter-personal.
> >>> What makes me wondering especially if I think about all the Twitter and
> >>> Facebook posts where I see you guys hanging out together is, that such,
> >> as
> >>> I suspect it inter-personal conflicts, erupt on the mailing list or
> over
> >>> code commits, where my naive understanding is, that you could talk
> >>> face-to-face to 

Re: "Umbrella" discussion

[Mark Struberg]

Yes, I gonna tackle this with a broader explanation. 
Btw, I don't agree with the 2 weeks. If you would apply this rule to other 
topics then TomEE8 would clearly not happen.
This is a discussion where everyone has a say and should be finished with 
either a clear outcome or a standard vote if there are different opinions.

I'll copy over the arguments from the mail thread to the private@geronimo.a.o 
and private@tomee.a.o mailing lists from 2018-08-11.
The discussion span for over 2 months back then. And of course the focus back 
then was about the 'future of Geronimo'. 
Please note that I'll only copy my own words as this was a private conversation 
and others need to copy their own words to public lists.


Again my argument: 


*) There should be a go-to place for such reusable enterprise parts at Apache. 
Like javamail, the tx-mgr, the specs, config, xbean, etc.

*) We should keep the o.a.geronimo.specs groupId (would be tons of work for 
downstream projects to change it) and we cannot have multiple PMCs using this 
groupId and package name.

*) Those reusable parts should have an own marketing name. We could reuse XBean 
or find a better one. 
Why? Geronimo is associated with a big and dead EE server, TomEE is associated 
with an alive EE server. Better, but not much. 
It should be clear that those reusable components are actually independent of 
each of the 3 projects.

*) The reusablel parts each also have a separate livecycle.

*) If we really shutdown Geronimo then all the active components should be 
moved to another project, the rest goes to the attic.

*) I totally don't care which PMC does the organisatorial thing as long as it 
is active. That would be a plus for the TomEE PMC as it is reasonably more 
active. We did not even get enough +1 for the last votes over here. That's not 
making me happy.


So far we have a few possible solutions:

1.) Keep Geronimo but burry the G server and change all the site, etc to make 
it sure that the public understands that G is now essentially something else. 
Not sure if this works 
2.) Same as 1 plus rename the Geronimo project to some other name (but still 
keep a.o.geronimo.specs).
3.) Create a new PMC with the usable components
4.) Move the usable parts to Commons
5.) Move the usable components to a disctinct area under the TomEE PMC, but 
with a separate brand name. It should _not_ be TomEE components, but something 
catchy 

What I do not want is to only get a half baked solution. Either we solve this 
fully or not at all.


Note: The outcome of this thread was that the Geronimo Application Server got 
retired in the meantime and Geronimo focuses on delivering reusable components 
in the EE space.

I'm happy to evaluate this again and move over all those parts to TomEE.
But only IF we find a way to make TomEE a viable Umbrella project.


What I do NOT want to happen: 
* have components which are not reusable in other projects but tightly coupled 
to the TomEE Application Server
We have tons of projects who make use of the Geronimo components. Think about 
the geronimo-transactionmanager. It's used in OpenJPA, CXF, ActiveMQ, and even 
many external projects. The same will happens (or already happened) with the 
Geronimo based Miroprofile spec implementations. 

* have users getting confused about the name 'TomEE'. Does it refer to the 
project? Does it refer to the App Server? Does it refer to some components 
which might be used on other app servers even?
We had this problem in MyFaces. That was the number one reason why things like 
myfaces-ext-cdi (CODI) and my faces-ext-validation only had limited reach.
If I'd got just one dollar for every time I got the feedback that 'CODI looks 
great, but sadly it only runs on MyFaces, but we have Mojarra'. 
That is the number one reason why we extracted CODI out of MyFaces and created 
DeltaSpike.

The same happened with openwebbeans-test-control. The API also worked perfectly 
fine with other containers. But nobody adopted it until we moved the code 1:1 
to DeltaSpike as deltaspike-cdictrl.
Oh and Geronimo had this problem as well. Of course, now that the G app server 
is officially dead this is a bit easier to explain.


That leads me to the following 2 points which we must solve:
* Make it sure that those components are totally independent from the 'TomEE 
Appliation Server' part
* Make that fact clear to users. So we need a different brand name for this 
part. 
That could even be 'Geronimo Components' hosted at the TomEE project. 
I'd also keep the org.apache.geronimo package name and groupId. They are widely 
used and esatablished.

Of course this requires 2 things:
1.) the TomEE community wants this to happen
2.) the Geronimo community wants this to let go.

Given that almost all of the active G people are also TomEE committers I think 
that point 2 is a rather low barrier.

So and now give me some feedback pretty please ;)

LieGrue,
strub


PS: those who have access to the Geroniom 

Re: Let's do better

[Mark Struberg]

Please all stop putting fuel into the fire. 

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> 
> Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
> all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.
> 
> Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
> écrit :
> 
>> +1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping from
>> the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender theoreme
>> anyone?).
>> And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
>> thus prone to be misinterpreted.
>> 
>> The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference in
>> view.
>> And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish. We
>> are all just passionate.
>> So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.
>> 
>> For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
>> done in other ASF projects.
>> And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
>> Server but to be reusable for other projects.
>> Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
>> about the TomEE project as governance body.
>> 
>> I also had an important lesson in the 90s:
>> 
>> If you have a problem
>> 1.) solve it
>> 2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
>> 3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.
>> 
>> More generally:
>> There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
>> There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
>> we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
>> And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
>> compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.
>> 
>> In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
>> It was simply a misunderstanding.
>> Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
>> This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very
>> easy to get misinterpreted.
>> And that's exactly what happens.
>> 
>> That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she snatches
>> your keys.
>> You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out that
>> she only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...
>> 
>> And now back to work pretty please ;)
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in
>> the
>>> past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been
>> there
>>> thousands of times and what I can tell for granted is that non of these
>>> situations are neither "incidents" nor "childish".
>>> 
>>> As a matter of fact each individual has a certain believe system on one
>>> hand and on the other hand lives on his/her own island. The latter I use
>> as
>>> an explanation for the fact that we all have our own perception of what
>> we
>>> think reality is and it usually isn't congruent with the perception of
>>> others. If either your believe systems are conflicting or your perception
>>> of what you think is reality are clashing, you usually have such
>>> "incidents".
>>> 
>>> That said I learned the hard way that usually you are not fighting, like
>> in
>>> this case, about backed out code but it's usually something
>> inter-personal.
>>> What makes me wondering especially if I think about all the Twitter and
>>> Facebook posts where I see you guys hanging out together is, that such,
>> as
>>> I suspect it inter-personal conflicts, erupt on the mailing list or over
>>> code commits, where my naive understanding is, that you could talk
>>> face-to-face to nail down what really drives you crazy.
>>> 
>>> What I learned is that it doesn't quite help, neither from the
>> perspective
>>> of somebody that is involved, nor from the perspective of somebody who
>> is a
>>> leader to finger point or to call out individuals. In the end you turned
>>> this into a mess and thus you have to fix it TOGETHER. If necessary you
>>> could even pull in a coach from outside. I for myself applied for a coach
>>> back in 2015. It's not a silver bullet and does not fix everything you
>>> screwed up in the past but it sometimes helps to have somebody with a
>>> neutral view and another opinion.
>>> 
>>> In the end my perception of reality on my little island is that you all
>>> bond a very strong team. I saw and worked with teams that were no real
>> team
>>> in the end. In your case I don't have such a perception and thus I
>> believe
>>> that you get this sorted out in a sustainable manner. Take it as a growth
>>> opportunity!
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:33 AM, David Blevins 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Ok, community, we have to have another quick talk and then hopefully we
 can go back to being awesome.