I don’t want to draw this issue out too much, so I'm going to move forward with the tagging approach (based on other comments) and we'll start implementing your CBS patches directly into the trunk for testing.
-Ben Dewey -----Original Message----- From: Ming Jin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Archival of certificate based StockTrader Hi there, I have a different idea towards this question. Please correct me if I got wrong. Thanks. Certificate based StockTrader of M1 means the message level security between BSL and OPS, while the Claims Based StockTrader of M2 focuses on the security between Trader_client and BSL, such as authentication & authorization. So far, as the OPS wsdl is not changed, so introducing CBS won't affect the communication between BSL and OPS. That means, they can be kept in one place, right? Do I miss something? Can someone tell me why we need to separate these two? -- Ming Jin On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Ben Dewey <[email protected]> wrote: > So, I've discussed this with a few people on and off the list, but I'd > like to start a public discussion on the topic. > > We are moving quickly into a Claims Based StockTrader for our M2 release. > There have been significant improvements since M1 and it would be a shame > to lose those. Basically the question is: > > How do we archive the certificate based StockTrader before moving on to a > full Claims Based StockTrader? > > Due to timing I don't think its feasible to have another relase, so we > basically looking at either. > > 1) Tagging a release as M1.1 complete with config and Metro > 2) Branching the StockTrader code for Certificate and Claims Based > > Thoughts anyone? Mentors? > > -Ben Dewey > > -- Ming Jin Consultant Thoughtworks, Incj <http://blogjava.net/mingj> Twitter: https://twitter.com/mingjin
