You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org> on 2015/04/23 13:32:23 UTC
Kerby 3rdparty module
Hi all,
Currently we include not-yet-commons-ssl in the 3rdpart module in Kerby.
This is required for PKCS8 support in the kerby-provider module. However we
can just include the dependency (there is a servicemix bundle) here. Should
I just go ahead and remove the 3rdparty module, or there a compelling
reason to keep it?
Colm.
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
RE: Kerby 3rdparty module
Posted by "Zheng, Kai" <ka...@intel.com>.
Hi Colm,
Could we delay on the action? Currently it’s still on early going to support PKINIT, so it’s not clear to me yet how much we would need to modify the 3rd party codes. Note the included one is a modified version after much clean up.
Regards,
Kai
From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:coheigea@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:32 PM
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: Kerby 3rdparty module
Hi all,
Currently we include not-yet-commons-ssl in the 3rdpart module in Kerby. This is required for PKCS8 support in the kerby-provider module. However we can just include the dependency (there is a servicemix bundle) here. Should I just go ahead and remove the 3rdparty module, or there a compelling reason to keep it?
Colm.
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: Kerby 3rdparty module
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
Yes, that's fine (for now)! I'd prefer if this was cleared up before the
first official release though (if necessary the code could be put on a
branch if it's not being used).
Colm.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Zheng, Kai <ka...@intel.com> wrote:
> Currently the 3rd party module is only used by the pki-provider, which
> isn’t actually really used yet. Is this OK for you Colm?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kai
>
>
>
> *From:* Zheng, Kai
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:39 PM
> *To:* Apache Directory Developers List; 'coheigea@apache.org'
> *Subject:* RE: Kerby 3rdparty module
>
>
>
> Hi Colm,
>
>
>
> Could we delay on the action? Currently it’s still on early going to
> support PKINIT, so it’s not clear to me yet how much we would need to
> modify the 3rd party codes. Note the included one is a modified version
> after much clean up.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kai
>
>
>
> *From:* Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:coheigea@apache.org
> <co...@apache.org>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:32 PM
> *To:* Apache Directory Developers List
> *Subject:* Kerby 3rdparty module
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Currently we include not-yet-commons-ssl in the 3rdpart module in Kerby.
> This is required for PKCS8 support in the kerby-provider module. However we
> can just include the dependency (there is a servicemix bundle) here. Should
> I just go ahead and remove the 3rdparty module, or there a compelling
> reason to keep it?
>
> Colm.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh
>
> Talend Community Coder
> http://coders.talend.com
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
RE: Kerby 3rdparty module
Posted by "Zheng, Kai" <ka...@intel.com>.
Currently the 3rd party module is only used by the pki-provider, which isn’t actually really used yet. Is this OK for you Colm?
Regards,
Kai
From: Zheng, Kai
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:39 PM
To: Apache Directory Developers List; 'coheigea@apache.org'
Subject: RE: Kerby 3rdparty module
Hi Colm,
Could we delay on the action? Currently it’s still on early going to support PKINIT, so it’s not clear to me yet how much we would need to modify the 3rd party codes. Note the included one is a modified version after much clean up.
Regards,
Kai
From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:coheigea@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:32 PM
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: Kerby 3rdparty module
Hi all,
Currently we include not-yet-commons-ssl in the 3rdpart module in Kerby. This is required for PKCS8 support in the kerby-provider module. However we can just include the dependency (there is a servicemix bundle) here. Should I just go ahead and remove the 3rdparty module, or there a compelling reason to keep it?
Colm.
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com