[security-dev] Moving DeltaSpike security to PicketLink

Shane Bryzak sbryzak at redhat.com
Mon Jul 30 04:54:51 EDT 2012

On 30/07/12 17:18, Boleslaw Dawidowicz wrote:
> Hmm… What is the benefit over just starting working on 2.x in current 
> picketlink-idm master and leave previous branches? I think you still 
> have two issues:
> - A lot of artefacts released to maven repo. You will need to define 
> different artefact names to avoid collisions but then it will still be 
> very difficult to avoid confusion. People already have a problem with 
> understanding that "PicketLink" is an umbrella project and very often 
> refer to either "PicketLink Federation" or "PicketLink IDM" as just 
> "PicketLink. If they now find both 
> "org.picketlink.idm:picketlink-idm-api" and "org.picketlink.idm:api: 
> or org:picketlink.idm:api jars with same version it will create 
> confusion. Then if we start from 2.x version - I'm not sure what does 
> it bring to rename old repo to legacy in such scenario. you just get 
> rid of few old branches and tags.  Btw. I branched what need to be 
> branched so picketlink-idm master is ready to be nuked.

I'm happy to do it that way, my only concern was that there will be 
major API breakage between the two versions hence the separation. If the 
current picketlink-idm is already branched and there's no problem nuking 
master, then we can place the new project in the same repo.
> - You would need to do the same with JIRA or you need to deal with 
> same problem. Because PicketLink IDM was only really consumed by 
> GateIn JIRA is a bit left behind - so quite easy to cleanup.

Good point, I hadn't considered JIRA.

> Could you write more how would you deal with those as part of repo 
> renaming?
> Btw. I'm still holding the official "PicketLink IDM Component Lead". 
> Because of my GateIn/EPP duties I don't think I will be able to spent 
> as much time as Shane on development - even though me and Marek 
> Posolda will try to help as much as possible. Therefore I think it may 
> be better for Shane to take over the official title as this will be 
> reflecting current reality anyway - no issue on my side :) I just need 
> to keep control of existing 1.x branches of PicketLink IDM as this is 
> what we still rely on in GateIn Portal and what we ship in EPP.
> Bolek
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 4:32 AM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sbryzak at redhat.com>> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>> I'm just looking at the infrastructure we have for doing this, 
>> currently in the PicketLink github repo [1] we have picketlink-idm 
>> and cdi repositories set up.  I propose that we rename picketlink-idm 
>> to picketlink-idm-legacy to make way for the new picketlink-idm, and 
>> rename cdi to picketlink-cdi (this module will then contain all the 
>> CDI and DeltaSpike integration for PicketLink IDM, plus some 
>> authorization features such as ACLs and permission management).  Are 
>> there any objections to this?
>> Shane
>> [1] https://github.com/picketlink
>> _______________________________________________
>> security-dev mailing list
>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:security-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20120730/46033b15/attachment.html 

More information about the security-dev mailing list