[security-dev] PicketLink workspace proposal

Pete Muir pmuir at redhat.com
Tue Oct 9 23:09:25 EDT 2012

On 8 Oct 2012, at 08:38, Anil Saldhana wrote:

> On 10/04/2012 01:37 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
>> On 4 Oct 2012, at 10:48, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> here is what Shane and I have been discussing in the last 10 days
>>>> that we can come to an agreement in this thread. Please provide your
>>>> feedback and insights as we move forward with the PicketLink main workspace.
>>>> Proposal:
>>>> PicketLink main workspace will have the following modules:
>>>> a) core : will contain the CDI based security code that Shane has been
>>>> driving.
>>> Maybe as already suggested, split into core and CDI, could be a good idea.
>> And if PicketBox is really the "core", then perhaps that becomes PicketBox core?
> Right - from application developer perspective, using CDI and its 
> associated security makes perfect sense.  That is why the PL module 
> needs to be called CDI.  But for many framework developers (such as in 
> AS and other JBoss Community projects) that do not want to have CDI 
> dependency but regular SE based security, then PicketBox core is the 
> right answer.

So, I go back to my original gripe, why call it Picket*Box* not PicketLink?

>>>> b) idm: will contain the idm api and impl submodules. This is low
>>>> dependency JavaSE library for Identity Management functionality (CRUD of
>>>> users/roles/groups). This module is ultra critical to all projects. c) federation: will contain the core SAML (and maybe WS-Trust) code
>>>> c) federation: will contain the core SAML (and maybe WS-Trust) code
>>>> without any EE container dependencies. Mainly parsing, writing and model
>>>> code.
>>>> d) social: will contain social login code that allows signin using
>>>> facebook, google/openid, twitter.
>>> +1
>>>> Versioning:
>>>> Last major release of PL has been with 2.1.5
>>>> (https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/PLINK/v2.1.5.Final)
>>>> So definitely we can release above with 3.x
>>>> Since we may need some container binding code with AS, Tomcat etc, we
>>>> have two possibilities:
>>>> a) Create another workspace in PicketLink github organization for the
>>>> container binding. (My preference)
>>> +1
>>>> b) Create a separate github organization that will host all the
>>>> container bindings, integration testing workspaces etc. We can call it
>>>> picketlinkbindings.
>>> -1
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Anil
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev

More information about the security-dev mailing list