You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com> on 2018/03/06 09:24:00 UTC
MP-JWT progress
Hi community,
So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
Now the question is how do we proceed?
Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
Here is the PR for discussion
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
Cheers
Jean-Louis
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>.
for example
JAX-RS application class annotated with @LoginConfig. > only urls defined
in the @ApplicationPath should use the JWT Auth method.
Other endpoints, like servlet should use the 'default' method defined in
the web.xml.
AFAIK, there exist no integration point possible to do this, not even
JASPIC. So it needs to be solved by the 'internals' of the Application
server.
On 9 March 2018 at 12:04, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-03-09 12:02 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>:
>
> > No objection but an important remark to make.
> >
> > it will not be enough to just add this geronimo-jwt-auth artifact to a
> > server to have it functional. There will be some server-side integration
> > code required (just as we will need for TomEE)
> >
>
> it is not the case for tomee and shouldn't normally if the server
> propagates properly its security context. It is not always the case, you
> are right,
> but for asf servers it should AFAIK, no?
>
>
> >
> > This is thus clearly different from other microprofile implementations
> like
> > geronimo-config.
> >
> > Just want to mention this as there are already people (outside of this
> > community) thinking that such a thing is possible (or should be possible)
> >
> > Rudy
> >
> > On 9 March 2018 at 11:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> > > rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > >
> > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi community,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> > > >>
> > > >> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for
> the
> > > >> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in
> MP-JWT
> > > TCK
> > > >> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > >>
> > > >> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > >> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit
> > like
> > > > Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> > > > remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config
> > etc).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain
> > in
> > > >> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Jean-Louis
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-09 12:02 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>:
> No objection but an important remark to make.
>
> it will not be enough to just add this geronimo-jwt-auth artifact to a
> server to have it functional. There will be some server-side integration
> code required (just as we will need for TomEE)
>
it is not the case for tomee and shouldn't normally if the server
propagates properly its security context. It is not always the case, you
are right,
but for asf servers it should AFAIK, no?
>
> This is thus clearly different from other microprofile implementations like
> geronimo-config.
>
> Just want to mention this as there are already people (outside of this
> community) thinking that such a thing is possible (or should be possible)
>
> Rudy
>
> On 9 March 2018 at 11:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> > rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >
> > > 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com
> > >:
> > >
> > >> Hi community,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> > >>
> > >> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> > >> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
> > TCK
> > >> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > >>
> > >> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > >> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit
> like
> > > Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> > > remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config
> etc).
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain
> in
> > >> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > >>
> > >
> > > +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Here is the PR for discussion
> > >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Jean-Louis
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>.
No objection but an important remark to make.
it will not be enough to just add this geronimo-jwt-auth artifact to a
server to have it functional. There will be some server-side integration
code required (just as we will need for TomEE)
This is thus clearly different from other microprofile implementations like
geronimo-config.
Just want to mention this as there are already people (outside of this
community) thinking that such a thing is possible (or should be possible)
Rudy
On 9 March 2018 at 11:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com
> >:
> >
> >> Hi community,
> >>
> >>
> >> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> >>
> >> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> >> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
> TCK
> >> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> >>
> >> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> >> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> >>
> >
> > I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
> > Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> > remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
> >> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> >>
> >
> > +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Here is the PR for discussion
> >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Jean-Louis
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-12 16:01 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
> So what's the conclusion here?
>
> Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> there along side with other implementations?
>
+1 from me
> Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
>
> I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move on
> with the contribution.
>
we already have 3 days passed so tempted to say maybe wait tonight and just
move forward if you don't have more feedback
in any case it wouldn't be too late to fork back at tomee later if desired
(but hopefully we'll not self-fork ;))
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > :
> >
> > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > There's
> > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > >
> > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may well
> > be
> > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > defined,
> > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > >
> > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate repos
> > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to
> > shift
> > > this off to Geronimo?
> > >
> >
> > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> what
> > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share
> the
> > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired it
> > is fine as well.
> >
> > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> webprofile,
> > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> rdebusscher@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > >
> > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be
> > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> clear
> > > from
> > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > >
> > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european
> > time)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > > > >> :
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> implementation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in
> > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a
> > bit
> > > > > like
> > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the
> > small
> > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> config
> > > > etc).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> > > remain
> > > > in
> > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
I can do it tomorrow morning romain
Le 18 mars 2018 18:31, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the
> project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-12 16:33 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>:
>
> > OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo.
> >
> > On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So what's the conclusion here?
> > >
> > > Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> > > there along side with other implementations?
> > > Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
> > >
> > > I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move
> > on
> > > with the contribution.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > > > There's
> > > > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need
> defining
> > > > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may
> > well
> > > > be
> > > > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > > > defined,
> > > > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate
> > repos
> > > > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush
> to
> > > > shift
> > > > > this off to Geronimo?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> > > what
> > > > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to
> share
> > > the
> > > > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not
> desired
> > it
> > > > is fine as well.
> > > >
> > > > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > > > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> > > webprofile,
> > > > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> > > rdebusscher@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will
> not
> > be
> > > > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> > > clear
> > > > > from
> > > > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday
> european
> > > > time)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > > > > > >> :
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> > > implementation.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks
> > Romain
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing
> part
> > in
> > > > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec
> > - a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing
> the
> > > > small
> > > > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> > > config
> > > > > > etc).
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that
> can
> > > > > remain
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
I can do it tomorrow morning romain
Le 18 mars 2018 18:31, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the
> project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-12 16:33 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>:
>
> > OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo.
> >
> > On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So what's the conclusion here?
> > >
> > > Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> > > there along side with other implementations?
> > > Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
> > >
> > > I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move
> > on
> > > with the contribution.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > > > There's
> > > > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need
> defining
> > > > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may
> > well
> > > > be
> > > > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > > > defined,
> > > > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate
> > repos
> > > > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush
> to
> > > > shift
> > > > > this off to Geronimo?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> > > what
> > > > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to
> share
> > > the
> > > > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not
> desired
> > it
> > > > is fine as well.
> > > >
> > > > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > > > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> > > webprofile,
> > > > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> > > rdebusscher@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will
> not
> > be
> > > > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> > > clear
> > > > > from
> > > > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday
> european
> > > > time)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > > > > > >> :
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> > > implementation.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks
> > Romain
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing
> part
> > in
> > > > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec
> > - a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing
> the
> > > > small
> > > > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> > > config
> > > > > > etc).
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that
> can
> > > > > remain
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the
project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-12 16:33 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>:
> OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo.
>
> On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So what's the conclusion here?
> >
> > Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> > there along side with other implementations?
> > Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
> >
> > I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move
> on
> > with the contribution.
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > > :
> > >
> > > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > > There's
> > > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> > > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > > >
> > > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may
> well
> > > be
> > > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > > defined,
> > > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > > >
> > > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate
> repos
> > > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to
> > > shift
> > > > this off to Geronimo?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> > what
> > > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share
> > the
> > > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired
> it
> > > is fine as well.
> > >
> > > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> > webprofile,
> > > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> > rdebusscher@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not
> be
> > > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> > clear
> > > > from
> > > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european
> > > time)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > > > > >> :
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> > implementation.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks
> Romain
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part
> in
> > > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec
> - a
> > > bit
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the
> > > small
> > > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> > config
> > > > > etc).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> > > > remain
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the
project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-12 16:33 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>:
> OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo.
>
> On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So what's the conclusion here?
> >
> > Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> > there along side with other implementations?
> > Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
> >
> > I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move
> on
> > with the contribution.
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > > :
> > >
> > > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > > There's
> > > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> > > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > > >
> > > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may
> well
> > > be
> > > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > > defined,
> > > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > > >
> > > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate
> repos
> > > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to
> > > shift
> > > > this off to Geronimo?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> > what
> > > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share
> > the
> > > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired
> it
> > > is fine as well.
> > >
> > > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> > webprofile,
> > > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> > rdebusscher@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not
> be
> > > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> > clear
> > > > from
> > > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european
> > > time)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > > > > >> :
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> > implementation.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks
> Romain
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part
> in
> > > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec
> - a
> > > bit
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the
> > > small
> > > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> > config
> > > > > etc).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> > > > remain
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>.
OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo.
On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
wrote:
> So what's the conclusion here?
>
> Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> there along side with other implementations?
> Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
>
> I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move on
> with the contribution.
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > :
> >
> > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > There's
> > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > >
> > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may well
> > be
> > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > defined,
> > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > >
> > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate repos
> > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to
> > shift
> > > this off to Geronimo?
> > >
> >
> > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> what
> > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share
> the
> > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired it
> > is fine as well.
> >
> > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> webprofile,
> > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> rdebusscher@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > >
> > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be
> > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> clear
> > > from
> > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > >
> > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european
> > time)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > > > >> :
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> implementation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in
> > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a
> > bit
> > > > > like
> > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the
> > small
> > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> config
> > > > etc).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> > > remain
> > > > in
> > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
So what's the conclusion here?
Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
there along side with other implementations?
Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move on
with the contribution.
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> :
>
> > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> There's
> > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> >
> > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may well
> be
> > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> defined,
> > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> >
> > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate repos
> > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to
> shift
> > this off to Geronimo?
> >
>
> No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push what
> he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share the
> same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired it
> is fine as well.
>
> It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact webprofile,
> nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
>
>
>
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <rdebusscher@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > >
> > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be
> > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made clear
> > from
> > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > >
> > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european
> time)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > > >> :
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain
> for
> > > the
> > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in
> > > MP-JWT
> > > > >>> TCK
> > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a
> bit
> > > > like
> > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the
> small
> > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config
> > > etc).
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> > remain
> > > in
> > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
:
> Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere. There's
> some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> before it can be "moved" in my view.
>
> Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may well be
> what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been defined,
> it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
>
> We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate repos
> under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to shift
> this off to Geronimo?
>
No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push what
he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share the
same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired it
is fine as well.
It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact webprofile,
nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> >
> > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be
> > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made clear
> from
> > the beginning for all potential usages.
> >
> > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > >
> > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > > >> :
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi community,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for
> > the
> > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in
> > MP-JWT
> > > >>> TCK
> > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit
> > > like
> > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config
> > etc).
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> remain
> > in
> > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers
> > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere. There's
some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
before it can be "moved" in my view.
Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may well be
what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been defined,
it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate repos
under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to shift
this off to Geronimo?
Jon
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be
> enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made clear from
> the beginning for all potential usages.
>
> On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > ee-8-high-performance>
> > >
> > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> > >> :
> > >>
> > >>> Hi community,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> > >>>
> > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for
> the
> > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in
> MP-JWT
> > >>> TCK
> > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > >>>
> > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit
> > like
> > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config
> etc).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain
> in
> > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>> Jean-Louis
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Rudy De Busscher <rd...@gmail.com>.
I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be
enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made clear from
the beginning for all potential usages.
On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >>
> >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> >> :
> >>
> >>> Hi community,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> >>>
> >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
> >>> TCK
> >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> >>>
> >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit
> like
> >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
> >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Jean-Louis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: What is this project?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:34 AM, Alex The Rocker <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe could you push it to the site in some place like "project history" ?
> It would be a shame to loose this opportunity to share it : memory is
> a sane way to make the future possible; please share if possible.
We could definitely do something like that. Still so much left out of this. Really hard to summarize 18 years. Our hack-a-thon in Tours always comes up in strolls down memory lane. We all took a week of vacation to get together and hack on TomEE. We started the week at 40% TCK passing and ended 80% passing.
So many stories.
> Note: I love the "TomTom" temporary name: it would have given an
> excellent 'positioning' for the project...
> But okay, copyright issues wouldn't allow it, to bad!
Terrible pun. I love it.
-David
Re: What is this project?
Posted by Alex The Rocker <al...@gmail.com>.
Hello David,
Thank you very much for sharing your history of what is now known as TomEE !
Maybe could you push it to the site in some place like "project history" ?
It would be a shame to loose this opportunity to share it : memory is
a sane way to make the future possible; please share if possible.
Note: I love the "TomTom" temporary name: it would have given an
excellent 'positioning' for the project...
But okay, copyright issues wouldn't allow it, to bad!
Thanks,
Alexandre
2018-03-22 3:04 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>:
>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 2:45 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still.
>> [...]
>> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
>
> Everyone is free to have a perspective on what this project is and it's ok for it not to be the same. It almost never is. It ebbs and it flows and that is natural. As long as we're clear when we say "TomEE is..." we are expressing our own opinions, we're ok.
>
> People tend to think of the project in terms of when they came in. Their "OpenEJB is x" or "TomEE is x" seems to reflect around the time they got commit.
>
> I've put together a timeline of how I've experienced the project. I think people should dream for more. It's the best part about open source and what got us even this far.
>
> If you look at this timeline you see all the growth periods are people deciding that this is where they wanted to work and they we're the most flexible on what that was. Even to the point of turning an EJB container into a Java EE platform.
>
> ------
> 1999-2001
>
> Project is born as an EJB library. Not quite a full EJB implementation. It is envisioned as an EJB Container with the EJB Server part being implemented by a full app server. The vision was to strategically not implement the server part so true app servers would integrate the project as a library. Resources are abundant, people are everywhere.
>
> Many people on the project want to implement the server portion and make the project more than it is. Myself and Richard tell them no. Speaking for myself, I was a newbie idiot in this phase of the project.
>
> 2001-2003
>
> Funding has dropped from the project, everyone from the original community but Daniel, Jacek and Alan have gone. I see it now as a full EJB implementation and perhaps a bit more. The Tomcat integration is born so Tomcat can have an EJB implementation. The embedded EJB container for testing is heavily pushed. The full remote protocol is created. The project is now bigger than its original scope, but only slightly. Generally, there are no resources and not many people around.
>
> 2003-2006
>
> Geronimo is launched and the project is flooded with new people excited about Geronimo's future. OpenEJB 1.0 is abandoned for OpenEJB 2.0 which is a total rewrite of EJB on the Geronimo kernel and module system. Tomcat integration and embedded EJB concepts are trashed. I still see this as a project that can live on its own and be more and something I'd love to see grow in scope. Everyone on Geronimo, but me, sees it as a library for Geronimo only. At one point I pull the remote EJB code from OpenEJB 1.0 into OpenEJB 2.0 and people got quietly mad for bringing "legacy" code forward. The mailing list is dead in these years with most discussion and decisions made on the Geronimo list. The project is now significantly smaller than its original scope, everyone is telling me to stop trying to make it more. There is a lot of fighting in this time frame.
>
> 2006-2010
>
> Work on OpenEJB 3.0 starts and this project regains technical freedom from Geronimo. Dain Sundstrom leaves Geronimo in this timeframe, wants to make up for killing OpenEJB 1.0 and puts his weight behind OpenEJB 3.0. OpenEJB 3.0 is based on OpenEJB 1.0 and the work towards an embeddable EJB container and a Tomcat integration continue where they left off. There was some discomfort, skepticism and grumbling in the Geronimo community but largely ripping out the old EJB container and putting in the new old EJB container was tolerated. Enjoyed, no, tolerated, yes. It was enjoyed perhaps a bit later. The embeddable container is a strong feature and brings new people into the project.
>
> The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously. Codebase grows 5x from roughly 50k lines of code to 250k lines of code.
>
> 2010-2014
>
> At this point "OpenEJB" is just shy of a full Java EE implementation and desire to push it to the next level is high. The Tomcat-OpenEJB integration is pushed. Momentarily called Tomtom, then finally called TomEE. Certification happens, the first TomEE releases are made. The project is renamed and the website referencing OpenEJB is changed to TomEE. The project enjoys amazing success. Things get busy fast. Geronimo says nothing about TomEE competing it its space, is supportive and begins using some additional TomEE/OpenEJB libraries like the jaxb tree. Xbean-finder is born originally created in OpenEJB/TomEE and moved to Geronimo.
>
> The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously and the charter is updated. Codebase grows 2x from roughly 250k to 520k lines of code.
>
> 2014-2018
>
> User base continues to grow dramatically. Codebase growth slows and lines of code go from roughly 520k to 580k. Many desire to see the project get back to its glory state and continue growing. TomEE-Geronimo relationship appears to be getting complicated again with perspectives being expressed that limit what TomEE should be and indicate Geronimo is the proper place for those things to live. There is a lot of fighting.
> ------
>
> Everything is temporary. We can be anything we want tomorrow. Where we are now feels a little bit like the 2003-2006 range. Not exactly, but similar. If that's the case, fantastic, because there was some really good times afterwards.
>
>
> -David
>
Re: What is this project?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
This approach is fine and where I disagree - but as you said one of the
beauty of asf is to be allowed to "disagree" - and dislike it a lot is that
it is a tomee central vision instead of considering asf as the central
point.
To try to illustrate it I'll take a car example: you can optimise the
thermic part of an engine, you can optimize the mecanic part, you can
optimize the electronic part. You will get the very best of each and some
figures for the car (perf/price/autonomy/...). Now if you start thinking
car wide you will degrade the mecanic part a bit, degrade the electronic
etc...and gain like 30% on the overall perf and price cause you dont look
locally but globally. A global optimum is rarely also a local optimum (only
in 1 case actually). This is why mecatronic and thinking globally is more
efficient than specialties in general and why just speaking of tomee sounds
like not going very far to me.
Le 22 mars 2018 03:04, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > On Mar 19, 2018, at 2:45 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love
> it - but still.
> > [...]
> > Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the
> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
>
> Everyone is free to have a perspective on what this project is and it's ok
> for it not to be the same. It almost never is. It ebbs and it flows and
> that is natural. As long as we're clear when we say "TomEE is..." we are
> expressing our own opinions, we're ok.
>
> People tend to think of the project in terms of when they came in. Their
> "OpenEJB is x" or "TomEE is x" seems to reflect around the time they got
> commit.
>
> I've put together a timeline of how I've experienced the project. I think
> people should dream for more. It's the best part about open source and
> what got us even this far.
>
> If you look at this timeline you see all the growth periods are people
> deciding that this is where they wanted to work and they we're the most
> flexible on what that was. Even to the point of turning an EJB container
> into a Java EE platform.
>
> ------
> 1999-2001
>
> Project is born as an EJB library. Not quite a full EJB implementation.
> It is envisioned as an EJB Container with the EJB Server part being
> implemented by a full app server. The vision was to strategically not
> implement the server part so true app servers would integrate the project
> as a library. Resources are abundant, people are everywhere.
>
> Many people on the project want to implement the server portion and make
> the project more than it is. Myself and Richard tell them no. Speaking
> for myself, I was a newbie idiot in this phase of the project.
>
> 2001-2003
>
> Funding has dropped from the project, everyone from the original community
> but Daniel, Jacek and Alan have gone. I see it now as a full EJB
> implementation and perhaps a bit more. The Tomcat integration is born so
> Tomcat can have an EJB implementation. The embedded EJB container for
> testing is heavily pushed. The full remote protocol is created. The
> project is now bigger than its original scope, but only slightly.
> Generally, there are no resources and not many people around.
>
> 2003-2006
>
> Geronimo is launched and the project is flooded with new people excited
> about Geronimo's future. OpenEJB 1.0 is abandoned for OpenEJB 2.0 which is
> a total rewrite of EJB on the Geronimo kernel and module system. Tomcat
> integration and embedded EJB concepts are trashed. I still see this as a
> project that can live on its own and be more and something I'd love to see
> grow in scope. Everyone on Geronimo, but me, sees it as a library for
> Geronimo only. At one point I pull the remote EJB code from OpenEJB 1.0
> into OpenEJB 2.0 and people got quietly mad for bringing "legacy" code
> forward. The mailing list is dead in these years with most discussion and
> decisions made on the Geronimo list. The project is now significantly
> smaller than its original scope, everyone is telling me to stop trying to
> make it more. There is a lot of fighting in this time frame.
>
> 2006-2010
>
> Work on OpenEJB 3.0 starts and this project regains technical freedom from
> Geronimo. Dain Sundstrom leaves Geronimo in this timeframe, wants to make
> up for killing OpenEJB 1.0 and puts his weight behind OpenEJB 3.0. OpenEJB
> 3.0 is based on OpenEJB 1.0 and the work towards an embeddable EJB
> container and a Tomcat integration continue where they left off. There was
> some discomfort, skepticism and grumbling in the Geronimo community but
> largely ripping out the old EJB container and putting in the new old EJB
> container was tolerated. Enjoyed, no, tolerated, yes. It was enjoyed
> perhaps a bit later. The embeddable container is a strong feature and
> brings new people into the project.
>
> The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously.
> Codebase grows 5x from roughly 50k lines of code to 250k lines of code.
>
> 2010-2014
>
> At this point "OpenEJB" is just shy of a full Java EE implementation and
> desire to push it to the next level is high. The Tomcat-OpenEJB integration
> is pushed. Momentarily called Tomtom, then finally called TomEE.
> Certification happens, the first TomEE releases are made. The project is
> renamed and the website referencing OpenEJB is changed to TomEE. The
> project enjoys amazing success. Things get busy fast. Geronimo says
> nothing about TomEE competing it its space, is supportive and begins using
> some additional TomEE/OpenEJB libraries like the jaxb tree. Xbean-finder
> is born originally created in OpenEJB/TomEE and moved to Geronimo.
>
> The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously and the
> charter is updated. Codebase grows 2x from roughly 250k to 520k lines of
> code.
>
> 2014-2018
>
> User base continues to grow dramatically. Codebase growth slows and lines
> of code go from roughly 520k to 580k. Many desire to see the project get
> back to its glory state and continue growing. TomEE-Geronimo relationship
> appears to be getting complicated again with perspectives being expressed
> that limit what TomEE should be and indicate Geronimo is the proper place
> for those things to live. There is a lot of fighting.
> ------
>
> Everything is temporary. We can be anything we want tomorrow. Where we
> are now feels a little bit like the 2003-2006 range. Not exactly, but
> similar. If that's the case, fantastic, because there was some really good
> times afterwards.
>
>
> -David
>
>
Re: What is this project?
Posted by Matthew Broadhead <ma...@nbmlaw.co.uk>.
yes very interesting. i didn't realise there was so much history behind
it. i came from tomcat so never knew about geronimo. i heard the name
all over the place of course
On 22/03/2018 03:04, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 2:45 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still.
>> [...]
>> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
> Everyone is free to have a perspective on what this project is and it's ok for it not to be the same. It almost never is. It ebbs and it flows and that is natural. As long as we're clear when we say "TomEE is..." we are expressing our own opinions, we're ok.
>
> People tend to think of the project in terms of when they came in. Their "OpenEJB is x" or "TomEE is x" seems to reflect around the time they got commit.
>
> I've put together a timeline of how I've experienced the project. I think people should dream for more. It's the best part about open source and what got us even this far.
>
> If you look at this timeline you see all the growth periods are people deciding that this is where they wanted to work and they we're the most flexible on what that was. Even to the point of turning an EJB container into a Java EE platform.
>
> ------
> 1999-2001
>
> Project is born as an EJB library. Not quite a full EJB implementation. It is envisioned as an EJB Container with the EJB Server part being implemented by a full app server. The vision was to strategically not implement the server part so true app servers would integrate the project as a library. Resources are abundant, people are everywhere.
>
> Many people on the project want to implement the server portion and make the project more than it is. Myself and Richard tell them no. Speaking for myself, I was a newbie idiot in this phase of the project.
>
> 2001-2003
>
> Funding has dropped from the project, everyone from the original community but Daniel, Jacek and Alan have gone. I see it now as a full EJB implementation and perhaps a bit more. The Tomcat integration is born so Tomcat can have an EJB implementation. The embedded EJB container for testing is heavily pushed. The full remote protocol is created. The project is now bigger than its original scope, but only slightly. Generally, there are no resources and not many people around.
>
> 2003-2006
>
> Geronimo is launched and the project is flooded with new people excited about Geronimo's future. OpenEJB 1.0 is abandoned for OpenEJB 2.0 which is a total rewrite of EJB on the Geronimo kernel and module system. Tomcat integration and embedded EJB concepts are trashed. I still see this as a project that can live on its own and be more and something I'd love to see grow in scope. Everyone on Geronimo, but me, sees it as a library for Geronimo only. At one point I pull the remote EJB code from OpenEJB 1.0 into OpenEJB 2.0 and people got quietly mad for bringing "legacy" code forward. The mailing list is dead in these years with most discussion and decisions made on the Geronimo list. The project is now significantly smaller than its original scope, everyone is telling me to stop trying to make it more. There is a lot of fighting in this time frame.
>
> 2006-2010
>
> Work on OpenEJB 3.0 starts and this project regains technical freedom from Geronimo. Dain Sundstrom leaves Geronimo in this timeframe, wants to make up for killing OpenEJB 1.0 and puts his weight behind OpenEJB 3.0. OpenEJB 3.0 is based on OpenEJB 1.0 and the work towards an embeddable EJB container and a Tomcat integration continue where they left off. There was some discomfort, skepticism and grumbling in the Geronimo community but largely ripping out the old EJB container and putting in the new old EJB container was tolerated. Enjoyed, no, tolerated, yes. It was enjoyed perhaps a bit later. The embeddable container is a strong feature and brings new people into the project.
>
> The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously. Codebase grows 5x from roughly 50k lines of code to 250k lines of code.
>
> 2010-2014
>
> At this point "OpenEJB" is just shy of a full Java EE implementation and desire to push it to the next level is high. The Tomcat-OpenEJB integration is pushed. Momentarily called Tomtom, then finally called TomEE. Certification happens, the first TomEE releases are made. The project is renamed and the website referencing OpenEJB is changed to TomEE. The project enjoys amazing success. Things get busy fast. Geronimo says nothing about TomEE competing it its space, is supportive and begins using some additional TomEE/OpenEJB libraries like the jaxb tree. Xbean-finder is born originally created in OpenEJB/TomEE and moved to Geronimo.
>
> The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously and the charter is updated. Codebase grows 2x from roughly 250k to 520k lines of code.
>
> 2014-2018
>
> User base continues to grow dramatically. Codebase growth slows and lines of code go from roughly 520k to 580k. Many desire to see the project get back to its glory state and continue growing. TomEE-Geronimo relationship appears to be getting complicated again with perspectives being expressed that limit what TomEE should be and indicate Geronimo is the proper place for those things to live. There is a lot of fighting.
> ------
>
> Everything is temporary. We can be anything we want tomorrow. Where we are now feels a little bit like the 2003-2006 range. Not exactly, but similar. If that's the case, fantastic, because there was some really good times afterwards.
>
>
> -David
>
What is this project?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 19, 2018, at 2:45 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still.
> [...]
> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
Everyone is free to have a perspective on what this project is and it's ok for it not to be the same. It almost never is. It ebbs and it flows and that is natural. As long as we're clear when we say "TomEE is..." we are expressing our own opinions, we're ok.
People tend to think of the project in terms of when they came in. Their "OpenEJB is x" or "TomEE is x" seems to reflect around the time they got commit.
I've put together a timeline of how I've experienced the project. I think people should dream for more. It's the best part about open source and what got us even this far.
If you look at this timeline you see all the growth periods are people deciding that this is where they wanted to work and they we're the most flexible on what that was. Even to the point of turning an EJB container into a Java EE platform.
------
1999-2001
Project is born as an EJB library. Not quite a full EJB implementation. It is envisioned as an EJB Container with the EJB Server part being implemented by a full app server. The vision was to strategically not implement the server part so true app servers would integrate the project as a library. Resources are abundant, people are everywhere.
Many people on the project want to implement the server portion and make the project more than it is. Myself and Richard tell them no. Speaking for myself, I was a newbie idiot in this phase of the project.
2001-2003
Funding has dropped from the project, everyone from the original community but Daniel, Jacek and Alan have gone. I see it now as a full EJB implementation and perhaps a bit more. The Tomcat integration is born so Tomcat can have an EJB implementation. The embedded EJB container for testing is heavily pushed. The full remote protocol is created. The project is now bigger than its original scope, but only slightly. Generally, there are no resources and not many people around.
2003-2006
Geronimo is launched and the project is flooded with new people excited about Geronimo's future. OpenEJB 1.0 is abandoned for OpenEJB 2.0 which is a total rewrite of EJB on the Geronimo kernel and module system. Tomcat integration and embedded EJB concepts are trashed. I still see this as a project that can live on its own and be more and something I'd love to see grow in scope. Everyone on Geronimo, but me, sees it as a library for Geronimo only. At one point I pull the remote EJB code from OpenEJB 1.0 into OpenEJB 2.0 and people got quietly mad for bringing "legacy" code forward. The mailing list is dead in these years with most discussion and decisions made on the Geronimo list. The project is now significantly smaller than its original scope, everyone is telling me to stop trying to make it more. There is a lot of fighting in this time frame.
2006-2010
Work on OpenEJB 3.0 starts and this project regains technical freedom from Geronimo. Dain Sundstrom leaves Geronimo in this timeframe, wants to make up for killing OpenEJB 1.0 and puts his weight behind OpenEJB 3.0. OpenEJB 3.0 is based on OpenEJB 1.0 and the work towards an embeddable EJB container and a Tomcat integration continue where they left off. There was some discomfort, skepticism and grumbling in the Geronimo community but largely ripping out the old EJB container and putting in the new old EJB container was tolerated. Enjoyed, no, tolerated, yes. It was enjoyed perhaps a bit later. The embeddable container is a strong feature and brings new people into the project.
The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously. Codebase grows 5x from roughly 50k lines of code to 250k lines of code.
2010-2014
At this point "OpenEJB" is just shy of a full Java EE implementation and desire to push it to the next level is high. The Tomcat-OpenEJB integration is pushed. Momentarily called Tomtom, then finally called TomEE. Certification happens, the first TomEE releases are made. The project is renamed and the website referencing OpenEJB is changed to TomEE. The project enjoys amazing success. Things get busy fast. Geronimo says nothing about TomEE competing it its space, is supportive and begins using some additional TomEE/OpenEJB libraries like the jaxb tree. Xbean-finder is born originally created in OpenEJB/TomEE and moved to Geronimo.
The project is bigger than any of the scopes it has had previously and the charter is updated. Codebase grows 2x from roughly 250k to 520k lines of code.
2014-2018
User base continues to grow dramatically. Codebase growth slows and lines of code go from roughly 520k to 580k. Many desire to see the project get back to its glory state and continue growing. TomEE-Geronimo relationship appears to be getting complicated again with perspectives being expressed that limit what TomEE should be and indicate Geronimo is the proper place for those things to live. There is a lot of fighting.
------
Everything is temporary. We can be anything we want tomorrow. Where we are now feels a little bit like the 2003-2006 range. Not exactly, but similar. If that's the case, fantastic, because there was some really good times afterwards.
-David
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Personally I'd prefer to do it directly as ut will be since there is no
technical challenge at all.
Le 27 mars 2018 23:39, "Jonathan Gallimore" <jo...@gmail.com>
a écrit :
> I'm currently pulling the TomEE sandbox to Git from SVN. Seems like a long
> process, I'll post when it is done. I'd be supportive of experimental work
> taking place there. When its at the point of being released, I'd prefer it
> to have its own repo.
>
> Jon
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
> > I've tried to answer the 2 VOTE threads.
> >
> > Another option is to merge and immediately extract the code into a
> sandbox
> > project so everyone can clearly see what is reusable or not.
> > Would that help?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Used most to be explicit and my meaning but your wording is more
> correct.
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 19 mars 2018 22:46, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having
> > > > something tomee independent in the back of your head please!
> > > > It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move
> things
> > > > over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid
> > duplications
> > > > if possible.
> > > > > Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be
> > put
> > > > in tomee codebase
> > > > Being french I assume you don't mean 'must not' but rather 'doesn't
> > need
> > > > to' or rather 'should not', isn't?
> > > > Of course people _can_ put it into TomEE. It's just that it doesn't
> > make
> > > > the most sense from an ASF wide approach. That doesn't mean that it's
> > not
> > > > allowed.
> > > >
> > > > LieGrue,strub
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 21:46:17 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > > > agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just
> > > > don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if
> > > > required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the
> > > > ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid
> > ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > > > agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center
> of
> > > > the world, but somewhere where people
> > > > >> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK
> to
> > do
> > > > so.
> > > > > No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in
> > > TomEE
> > > > of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI
> > problem
> > > > then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in
> > > TomEE.
> > > > And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and
> > not
> > > > in TomEE. Got me?
> > > > >
> > > > > You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to
> > 'tweak'
> > > > OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that
> > up
> > > > and the code is now much easier to maintain.
> > > > > The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF
> > > > commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where
> > > they
> > > > belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just
> add
> > a
> > > > workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do
> it.
> > > And
> > > > in the long term it adds maintenance costs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work,
> > so
> > > I
> > > > cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or
> not.
> > > > Will try to catch up in the next few days.
> > > > > LieGrue,strub
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andy Gumbrecht
> > > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > https://www.tomitribe.io
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ubique
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'm currently pulling the TomEE sandbox to Git from SVN. Seems like a long
process, I'll post when it is done. I'd be supportive of experimental work
taking place there. When its at the point of being released, I'd prefer it
to have its own repo.
Jon
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> I've tried to answer the 2 VOTE threads.
>
> Another option is to merge and immediately extract the code into a sandbox
> project so everyone can clearly see what is reusable or not.
> Would that help?
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Used most to be explicit and my meaning but your wording is more correct.
> >
> >
> > Le 19 mars 2018 22:46, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having
> > > something tomee independent in the back of your head please!
> > > It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move things
> > > over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid
> duplications
> > > if possible.
> > > > Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be
> put
> > > in tomee codebase
> > > Being french I assume you don't mean 'must not' but rather 'doesn't
> need
> > > to' or rather 'should not', isn't?
> > > Of course people _can_ put it into TomEE. It's just that it doesn't
> make
> > > the most sense from an ASF wide approach. That doesn't mean that it's
> not
> > > allowed.
> > >
> > > LieGrue,strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 21:46:17 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > > agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just
> > > don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if
> > > required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the
> > > ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid
> ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > > agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of
> > > the world, but somewhere where people
> > > >> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to
> do
> > > so.
> > > > No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in
> > TomEE
> > > of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI
> problem
> > > then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in
> > TomEE.
> > > And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and
> not
> > > in TomEE. Got me?
> > > >
> > > > You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to
> 'tweak'
> > > OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that
> up
> > > and the code is now much easier to maintain.
> > > > The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF
> > > commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where
> > they
> > > belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add
> a
> > > workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it.
> > And
> > > in the long term it adds maintenance costs.
> > > >
> > > > I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work,
> so
> > I
> > > cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not.
> > > Will try to catch up in the next few days.
> > > > LieGrue,strub
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Gumbrecht
> > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > https://www.tomitribe.io
> > >
> > >
> > > Ubique
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
I've tried to answer the 2 VOTE threads.
Another option is to merge and immediately extract the code into a sandbox
project so everyone can clearly see what is reusable or not.
Would that help?
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Used most to be explicit and my meaning but your wording is more correct.
>
>
> Le 19 mars 2018 22:46, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> a
> écrit :
>
> > heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having
> > something tomee independent in the back of your head please!
> > It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move things
> > over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid duplications
> > if possible.
> > > Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put
> > in tomee codebase
> > Being french I assume you don't mean 'must not' but rather 'doesn't need
> > to' or rather 'should not', isn't?
> > Of course people _can_ put it into TomEE. It's just that it doesn't make
> > the most sense from an ASF wide approach. That doesn't mean that it's not
> > allowed.
> >
> > LieGrue,strub
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 21:46:17 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >
> > Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just
> > don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if
> > required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the
> > ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-)
> >
> >
> > On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of
> > the world, but somewhere where people
> > >> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do
> > so.
> > > No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in
> TomEE
> > of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem
> > then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in
> TomEE.
> > And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not
> > in TomEE. Got me?
> > >
> > > You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak'
> > OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up
> > and the code is now much easier to maintain.
> > > The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF
> > commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where
> they
> > belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a
> > workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it.
> And
> > in the long term it adds maintenance costs.
> > >
> > > I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so
> I
> > cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not.
> > Will try to catch up in the next few days.
> > > LieGrue,strub
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Andy Gumbrecht
> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > https://www.tomitribe.io
> >
> >
> > Ubique
> >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Used most to be explicit and my meaning but your wording is more correct.
Le 19 mars 2018 22:46, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> a écrit :
> heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having
> something tomee independent in the back of your head please!
> It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move things
> over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid duplications
> if possible.
> > Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put
> in tomee codebase
> Being french I assume you don't mean 'must not' but rather 'doesn't need
> to' or rather 'should not', isn't?
> Of course people _can_ put it into TomEE. It's just that it doesn't make
> the most sense from an ASF wide approach. That doesn't mean that it's not
> allowed.
>
> LieGrue,strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 21:46:17 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
> Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just
> don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if
> required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the
> ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-)
>
>
> On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of
> the world, but somewhere where people
> >> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do
> so.
> > No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE
> of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem
> then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE.
> And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not
> in TomEE. Got me?
> >
> > You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak'
> OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up
> and the code is now much easier to maintain.
> > The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF
> commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they
> belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a
> workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And
> in the long term it adds maintenance costs.
> >
> > I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I
> cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not.
> Will try to catch up in the next few days.
> > LieGrue,strub
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> https://www.tomitribe.io
>
>
> Ubique
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
heh yea, just keep it going. But keep the idea of probably having something tomee independent in the back of your head please!
It's not that we need to go through incubator if we want to move things over to Geronimo later. But it would still be great to avoid duplications if possible.
> Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put in tomee codebase
Being french I assume you don't mean 'must not' but rather 'doesn't need to' or rather 'should not', isn't?
Of course people _can_ put it into TomEE. It's just that it doesn't make the most sense from an ASF wide approach. That doesn't mean that it's not allowed.
LieGrue,strub
On Monday, 19 March 2018, 21:46:17 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just
don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if
required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the
ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-)
On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people
>> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so.
> No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE. And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not in TomEE. Got me?
>
> You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak' OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up and the code is now much easier to maintain.
> The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And in the long term it adds maintenance costs.
>
> I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not. Will try to catch up in the next few days.
> LieGrue,strub
>
>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
https://www.tomitribe.io
Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>.
Totally agree Mark! So not sure where the issue lays if any? I just
don't see a problem with accepting contributions and refactoring if
required in order to get the ball rolling, rather than staring at the
ball until becomes a cube, or waiting for it to be a perfect pyramid ;-)
On 19/03/18 17:03, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people
>> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so.
> No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE. And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not in TomEE. Got me?
>
> You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak' OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up and the code is now much easier to maintain.
> The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And in the long term it adds maintenance costs.
>
> I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not. Will try to catch up in the next few days.
> LieGrue,strub
>
>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
https://www.tomitribe.io
Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
On Monday, 19 March 2018, 11:05:21 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people
> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so.
No, I didn't mean it that way. It's perfectly fine to do things in TomEE of course. And again: TomEE IS important. But if we hit some CDI problem then we should try to fix it 'upstream' in OpenWebBeans - and not in TomEE. And if we hit JAX-RS issues then we should try to fix it in CXF - and not in TomEE. Got me?
You know that we had lots of duplication and hacks in TomEE to 'tweak' OWB. And it did really hurt when the spec did evolve. We cleaned that up and the code is now much easier to maintain.
The thing I wanted to express is that the barriers for existing ASF commiters are pretty low. If possible then we should fix things where they belong to. Yes, sometimes it might be the easiest/quickest to just add a workaround in TomEE. But often that is not the _correct_ way to do it. And in the long term it adds maintenance costs.
I have to admit that I did just roughly glimpsed over the JWT work, so I cannot even judge whether the JWT part makes sense for Geronimo or not. Will try to catch up in the next few days.
LieGrue,strub
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the reply. I've split that out into a separate thread so it
doesn't hijack this one and will just give people space to object /
discuss, and then I'll move that over.
Jon
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> No nees to ask to move vode over sandbox, great idea Jon.
>
> Le 19 mars 2018 12:10, "Jonathan Gallimore" <jo...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
> > We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with
> > different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it
> did
> > a
> > while back (ok, 10 years back - has it really been that long...?) for an
> > Eclipse plugin. I think we need a safe place where experimentation can
> > happen and code can be committed and worked on (that isn't just a PR). A
> > number of things in the old sandbox have moved onto other places.
> >
> > If I sent a PR and it was whisked away to Geronimo, my immediate issue
> > would be that I don't have commit access there, so I'm then restricted to
> > sending in PRs.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <
> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where
> people
> > > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do
> > so.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >
> > >> @Anydy and @David
> > >> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really
> love
> > >> it - but still.
> > >> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs
> I
> > >> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades
> for
> > >> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat
> > >> behaviour changes.
> > >> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other
> > >> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects
> > >> involved which just get consumed by TomEE:
> > >> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces
> > >> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE
> > >> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, *
> > >> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs
> > >> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the
> > >> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
> > >> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the
> > work
> > >> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done
> FOR
> > >> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace
> > them.
> > >>
> > >> This is not a one way street.
> > >> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out
> TomEE
> > >> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the
> > downstream
> > >> projects as well. And the other way around.
> > >> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a
> huge
> > >> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock
> solid
> > >> base.
> > >>
> > >> LieGrue,strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> > >> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we
> > should
> > >> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where
> > >> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just
> serves
> > >> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly
> after
> > >> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be
> TomEE,
> > >> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank
> > >> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to
> > >> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do
> > >> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the
> > >> priority for TomEE.
> > >>
> > >> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible.
> If
> > >> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
> > >> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need
> back-porting
> > >> can be addressed later.
> > >>
> > >> Andy.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
> > >>>>
> > >>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this
> > >>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that
> weren't
> > >>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning
> > TomEE
> > >>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has
> > >>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have
> > opinions
> > >>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as
> wanting
> > to
> > >>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so
> > >>> people can move forward with clear support.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -David
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > > --
> > > Andy Gumbrecht
> > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > https://www.tomitribe.io
> > >
> > >
> > > Ubique
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
No nees to ask to move vode over sandbox, great idea Jon.
Le 19 mars 2018 12:10, "Jonathan Gallimore" <jo...@gmail.com>
a écrit :
> We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with
> different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it did
> a
> while back (ok, 10 years back - has it really been that long...?) for an
> Eclipse plugin. I think we need a safe place where experimentation can
> happen and code can be committed and worked on (that isn't just a PR). A
> number of things in the old sandbox have moved onto other places.
>
> If I sent a PR and it was whisked away to Geronimo, my immediate issue
> would be that I don't have commit access there, so I'm then restricted to
> sending in PRs.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <agumbrecht@tomitribe.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people
> > should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do
> so.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >
> >> @Anydy and @David
> >> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love
> >> it - but still.
> >> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I
> >> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for
> >> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat
> >> behaviour changes.
> >> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other
> >> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects
> >> involved which just get consumed by TomEE:
> >> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces
> >> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE
> >> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, *
> >> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs
> >> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the
> >> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
> >> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the
> work
> >> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR
> >> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace
> them.
> >>
> >> This is not a one way street.
> >> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE
> >> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the
> downstream
> >> projects as well. And the other way around.
> >> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge
> >> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid
> >> base.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,strub
> >>
> >>
> >> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
> >> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we
> should
> >> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where
> >> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves
> >> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after
> >> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE,
> >> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank
> >> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to
> >> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do
> >> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the
> >> priority for TomEE.
> >>
> >> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If
> >> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
> >> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting
> >> can be addressed later.
> >>
> >> Andy.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
> >>>>
> >>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this
> >>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't
> >>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning
> TomEE
> >>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has
> >>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have
> opinions
> >>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting
> to
> >>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
> >>>
> >>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so
> >>> people can move forward with clear support.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > --
> > Andy Gumbrecht
> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > https://www.tomitribe.io
> >
> >
> > Ubique
> >
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
We used to have the concept of a sandbox which allowed folks to play with
different ideas https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/. I it did a
while back (ok, 10 years back - has it really been that long...?) for an
Eclipse plugin. I think we need a safe place where experimentation can
happen and code can be committed and worked on (that isn't just a PR). A
number of things in the old sandbox have moved onto other places.
If I sent a PR and it was whisked away to Geronimo, my immediate issue
would be that I don't have commit access there, so I'm then restricted to
sending in PRs.
Jon
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>
wrote:
> I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people
> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so.
>
>
>
> On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> @Anydy and @David
>> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love
>> it - but still.
>> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I
>> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for
>> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat
>> behaviour changes.
>> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other
>> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects
>> involved which just get consumed by TomEE:
>> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces
>> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE
>> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, *
>> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs
>> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the
>> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
>> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work
>> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR
>> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them.
>>
>> This is not a one way street.
>> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE
>> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream
>> projects as well. And the other way around.
>> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge
>> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid
>> base.
>>
>> LieGrue,strub
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
>> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should
>> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where
>> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves
>> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after
>> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE,
>> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank
>> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to
>> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do
>> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the
>> priority for TomEE.
>>
>> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If
>> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
>> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting
>> can be addressed later.
>>
>> Andy.
>>
>>
>> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this
>>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't
>>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE
>>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has
>>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions
>>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to
>>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
>>>
>>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so
>>> people can move forward with clear support.
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> https://www.tomitribe.io
>
>
> Ubique
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-19 11:04 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people
> should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so.
you describe ASF here ;)
However it is also important to not shout in our own foot and this is what
I try to do ensure we do having a single umbrella project. Goal is not to
prevent TomEE
to be "free" but really to make its community stronger and consistent
accross ASF and users.
A random example is: if we end up having geronimo-jwt-auth and
tomee-jwt-auth then what end users will use? How will tomee be perceived in
ASF ecosystem?
We always managed to have a strong and consistent ecosystem and it is what
I'm trying to promote with my warning on creating a jwt-auth @tomee which
would
split the efforts.
If the issue is the committership then this is something quickly fixes with
the contributions at asf so this must not be a blocker for the choice today.
People at tomee are great and a lot are worth having G committership once
passed the entering bar which is valuable contributions as on any asf
project. No
reason it doesn't happen.
>
>
>
> On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> @Anydy and @David
>> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love
>> it - but still.
>> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I
>> had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for
>> EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat
>> behaviour changes.
>> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other
>> projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects
>> involved which just get consumed by TomEE:
>> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces
>> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE
>> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, *
>> geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs
>> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the
>> world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
>> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work
>> on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR
>> TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them.
>>
>> This is not a one way street.
>> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE
>> contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream
>> projects as well. And the other way around.
>> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge
>> adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid
>> base.
>>
>> LieGrue,strub
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <
>> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should
>> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where
>> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves
>> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after
>> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE,
>> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank
>> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to
>> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do
>> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the
>> priority for TomEE.
>>
>> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If
>> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
>> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting
>> can be addressed later.
>>
>> Andy.
>>
>>
>> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this
>>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't
>>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE
>>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has
>>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions
>>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to
>>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
>>>
>>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so
>>> people can move forward with clear support.
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> https://www.tomitribe.io
>
>
> Ubique
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>.
I don't see TomEE as the center of the world, but somewhere where people
should be free to work without constantly being told it's not OK to do so.
On 19/03/18 10:45, Mark Struberg wrote:
> @Anydy and @David
> Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still.
>
> For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat behaviour changes.
> But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects involved which just get consumed by TomEE:
> * Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces
> * Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE
> * various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs
> Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
> But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them.
>
> This is not a one way street.
> We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream projects as well. And the other way around.
> We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid base.
>
> LieGrue,strub
>
>
> On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should
> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where
> things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves
> to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after
> a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE,
> as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank
> you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to
> worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do
> that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the
> priority for TomEE.
>
> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If
> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting
> can be addressed later.
>
> Andy.
>
>
> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
>>
>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
https://www.tomitribe.io
Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
@Anydy and @David
Let's face it TomEE is mostly an aggregator. A great one, I really love it - but still.
For example: apart from verifying and excluding all the broken TCKs I had probably 30 committs for TomEE8 which are really due to upgrades for EE8. Most of them have been CDI-2.0 adoptions and adopting to Tomcat behaviour changes.
But apart from that Romain I had about 4000 commits in all the other projects, all for TomEE8. And there are many more people and projects involved which just get consumed by TomEE:
* Tomcat* OpenWebBeans* MyFaces
* Johnzon* OpenJPA* BVal* log4j* commons* BatchEE
* various geronimo libs like * xbean, * geronimo-jta, * geronimo-javamail, tons of * geronimo-specs
Folks, you have to stop thinking as TomEE as being the center of the world. I love TomEE and it's a great aggregator and a great community.
But building TomEE is literally just the tip of the iceberg. All the work on the parts under the water - which is the vast majority - is done FOR TomEE but *not* AT TomEE!So don't fight those communities but embrace them.
This is not a one way street.
We (TomEE) should be really much more active in pointing that out TomEE contributors are perfectly welcome to tinker around in all the downstream projects as well. And the other way around.
We need EACH OTHER! TomEE as kind of end-user projects which adds a huge adoption factor. And of course the components underneath as a rock solid base.
LieGrue,strub
On Monday, 19 March 2018, 09:37:36 CET, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should
allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where
things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves
to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after
a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE,
as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank
you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to
worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do
that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the
priority for TomEE.
The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If
that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting
can be addressed later.
Andy.
On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
>
> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support.
>
>
> -David
>
>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
https://www.tomitribe.io
Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-19 9:37 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should
> allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where things
> should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves to block
> any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after a week of
> back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE, as that is
> the community we serve. The first response should be thank you, and we
> should accept the help offered. Then those that want to worry about
> extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do that if they feel
> strongly enough about it. It should not be the priority for TomEE.
>
Well, this has been discussed N times and TomEE always has been the second
choice. I am particularly unhappy it keeps coming back until it is TomEE
which will just kill TomEE as a project IMHO and it kills the effort as
well.
>
> The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If
> that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
> should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting can
> be addressed later.
>
This is actually what is done and as showed with MP-Config it works very
well this way:
1. impl @G
2. integration @T (keep in mind tomee is an integration project and not an
impl project otherwise we need to absorb cxf, activemp, openjpa,
openwebbeans, batchee, johnzon, ...)
This allows to use the projects in any CDI based application without having
the drawback of being tomee dependent which is not required by any MP spec.
>
> Andy.
>
>
>
> On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>>
>> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this
>> thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't
>> resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE
>> and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has
>> already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions
>> that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to
>> put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
>>
>> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so
>> people can move forward with clear support.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> https://www.tomitribe.io
>
>
> Ubique
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>.
I think that if anyone feels like contributing to TomEE then we should
allow and encourage that as soon as possible. The politics of where
things should 'eventually' reside is a huge distraction and just serves
to block any progress at the moment - The enthusiasm dies quickly after
a week of back and forth. The first choice for anything should be TomEE,
as that is the community we serve. The first response should be thank
you, and we should accept the help offered. Then those that want to
worry about extraction and reuse should feel free to go ahead and do
that if they feel strongly enough about it. It should not be the
priority for TomEE.
The goal should be to get TomEE on the MP board as soon as possible. If
that initially means TomEE 8, Java 8, and accepting a few PRs then we
should press ahead with that now. Anything that might need back-porting
can be addressed later.
Andy.
On 19/03/18 01:02, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
> I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
>
> I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support.
>
>
> -David
>
>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
https://www.tomitribe.io
Ubique
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support.
-David
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo. At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision. I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.
I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support.
-David
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put in
tomee codebase.
Hope it is clearer this time.
Le 19 mars 2018 18:54, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
> >>>
> >>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have
> >>> been created anywhere yet, is that right?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating
> >>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?
> Something
> >>> not branded tomee or geronimo.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella,
> no
> >>> more a project delivery by itself.
> >>>
> >>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
> >>>
> >>
> >> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
> >> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far
> as I
> >> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code
> even
> >> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely
> tied
> >> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
> >>
> >> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
> >>
> >
> > As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no
> > reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
> >
>
>
> Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to
> say.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put in
tomee codebase.
Hope it is clearer this time.
Le 19 mars 2018 18:54, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
> >>>
> >>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have
> >>> been created anywhere yet, is that right?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating
> >>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?
> Something
> >>> not branded tomee or geronimo.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella,
> no
> >>> more a project delivery by itself.
> >>>
> >>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
> >>>
> >>
> >> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
> >> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far
> as I
> >> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code
> even
> >> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely
> tied
> >> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
> >>
> >> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
> >>
> >
> > As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no
> > reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
> >
>
>
> Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to
> say.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
>>>
>>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have
>>> been created anywhere yet, is that right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating
>>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something
>>> not branded tomee or geronimo.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
>>> more a project delivery by itself.
>>>
>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>>
>>
>> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
>> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I
>> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even
>> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied
>> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
>>
>> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
>>
>
> As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no
> reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
>
Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to
say.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
>>>
>>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have
>>> been created anywhere yet, is that right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating
>>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something
>>> not branded tomee or geronimo.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
>>> more a project delivery by itself.
>>>
>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>>
>>
>> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
>> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I
>> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even
>> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied
>> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
>>
>> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
>>
>
> As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no
> reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
>
Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to
say.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
>>
>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been
>> created anywhere yet, is that right?
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>
>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating
>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something
>> not branded tomee or geronimo.
>>
>>
>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
>> more a project delivery by itself.
>>
>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>
>
> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I
> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even
> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied
> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
>
> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
>
As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no
reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
>>
>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been
>> created anywhere yet, is that right?
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>
>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating
>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something
>> not branded tomee or geronimo.
>>
>>
>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
>> more a project delivery by itself.
>>
>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>
>
> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
> geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I
> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even
> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied
> to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
>
> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
>
As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no
reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
>
> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been
> created anywhere yet, is that right?
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on
> a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something not
> branded tomee or geronimo.
>
>
> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
> more a project delivery by itself.
>
> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I
can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even
exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied
to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
>
>
>
> -David
>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
>
> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been
> created anywhere yet, is that right?
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on
> a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something not
> branded tomee or geronimo.
>
>
> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
> more a project delivery by itself.
>
> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
geronimo that is TomEE specific. I haven't looked at the code (as far as I
can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even
exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied
to your container. So I don't believe its a good fit.
Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
>
>
>
> -David
>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been
created anywhere yet, is that right?
Yes
Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on
a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something not
branded tomee or geronimo.
This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
more a project delivery by itself.
Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
-David
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been
created anywhere yet, is that right?
Yes
Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on
a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something not
branded tomee or geronimo.
This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
more a project delivery by itself.
Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
-David
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right?
Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something not branded tomee or geronimo.
-David
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right?
Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change? Something not branded tomee or geronimo.
-David
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-18 20:38 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>:
> In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now.
>
> If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred.
>
I'm not following the rational here. Let me try to summarize another time
for you to ensure we speak of the same thing:
1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
2. code we worked on with JL has no tomee dependency (see 4 to be complete
here)
3. as the MP-Config work Roberto did, we'll need a TCK module (next to the
Roberto's one) for jwt-auth spec + a modification of the MP distro
4. TomEE had some propagation bug we need to fix - MP or not since it
happens with a plain servlet
So the JWT-Auth PR for TomEE can be:
A. this one which means TomEE will have an implementation of JWT-Auth and
Geronimo another one
B. the JWT-Auth code moves to Geronimo and TomEE merges from this PR 3 and 4
Just to restate it since it seems we restart from a blank page ;): I'm -1
on A to avoid to split our effort and noise as ASF and +1 for B.
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge
> this at least?
>
>
> -David
>
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
> :
>
> Hi community,
>
>
> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>
> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
> TCK
> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>
> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>
>
> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>
>
>
> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>
>
> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>
>
>
> Here is the PR for discussion
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>
> Cheers
> Jean-Louis
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-18 20:38 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>:
> In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now.
>
> If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred.
>
I'm not following the rational here. Let me try to summarize another time
for you to ensure we speak of the same thing:
1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
2. code we worked on with JL has no tomee dependency (see 4 to be complete
here)
3. as the MP-Config work Roberto did, we'll need a TCK module (next to the
Roberto's one) for jwt-auth spec + a modification of the MP distro
4. TomEE had some propagation bug we need to fix - MP or not since it
happens with a plain servlet
So the JWT-Auth PR for TomEE can be:
A. this one which means TomEE will have an implementation of JWT-Auth and
Geronimo another one
B. the JWT-Auth code moves to Geronimo and TomEE merges from this PR 3 and 4
Just to restate it since it seems we restart from a blank page ;): I'm -1
on A to avoid to split our effort and noise as ASF and +1 for B.
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge
> this at least?
>
>
> -David
>
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
> :
>
> Hi community,
>
>
> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>
> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
> TCK
> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>
> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>
>
> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>
>
>
> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>
>
> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>
>
>
> Here is the PR for discussion
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>
> Cheers
> Jean-Louis
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now.
If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge this at least?
>
>
> -David
>
>> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
>>> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi community,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>>>> TCK
>>>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>>>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>>>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jean-Louis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@JL: ok I let you do
@David: hmm, not sure which part I missed but there is nothing to merge
except the TCK part which requires to extract it from the PR. This is what
JL will do tmr so we can merge it after.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-18 20:26 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>:
> I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge
> this at least?
>
>
> -David
>
> > On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> >> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
> >>
> >> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>> Hi community,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> >>>>
> >>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> >>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
> >>>> TCK
> >>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> >>>>
> >>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> >>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit
> like
> >>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> >>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config
> etc).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain
> in
> >>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the PR for discussion
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Jean-Louis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@JL: ok I let you do
@David: hmm, not sure which part I missed but there is nothing to merge
except the TCK part which requires to extract it from the PR. This is what
JL will do tmr so we can merge it after.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-18 20:26 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>:
> I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge
> this at least?
>
>
> -David
>
> > On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> >> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
> >>
> >> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>> Hi community,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
> >>>>
> >>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> >>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
> >>>> TCK
> >>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> >>>>
> >>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> >>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit
> like
> >>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> >>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config
> etc).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain
> in
> >>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the PR for discussion
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Jean-Louis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now.
If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge this at least?
>
>
> -David
>
>> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
>>> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi community,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>>>> TCK
>>>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>>>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>>>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jean-Louis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge this at least?
-David
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
>> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Hi community,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>>
>>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>>> TCK
>>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jean-Louis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge this at least?
-David
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
>> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Hi community,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>>
>>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>>> TCK
>>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jean-Louis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>> :
>>
>>> Hi community,
>>>
>>>
>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>
>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>> TCK
>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>
>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>
>>
>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>
>>
>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jean-Louis
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>> :
>>
>>> Hi community,
>>>
>>>
>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>
>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>> TCK
>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>
>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>
>>
>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>
>>
>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jean-Louis
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
>
>> Hi community,
>>
>>
>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>
>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>
>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>
>
> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>
>
>>
>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>
>
> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>
>
>>
>> Here is the PR for discussion
>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
>
>> Hi community,
>>
>>
>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>
>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>
>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>
>
> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>
>
>>
>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>
>
> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>
>
>>
>> Here is the PR for discussion
>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
> Hi community,
>
>
> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>
> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>
> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>
I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>
> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>
+1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>
> Here is the PR for discussion
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>
> Cheers
> Jean-Louis
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
Re: MP-JWT progress
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
> Hi community,
>
>
> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>
> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>
> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>
I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>
> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>
+1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>
> Here is the PR for discussion
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>
> Cheers
> Jean-Louis
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>