[security-dev] PicketLink Version and "Core" Module name
Pedro Igor Silva
psilva at redhat.com
Fri Oct 19 09:51:34 EDT 2012
Just fixed that. Sending a PR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana at redhat.com>
To: security-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:39:28 AM
Subject: Re: [security-dev] PicketLink Version and "Core" Module name
On 10/18/2012 03:09 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
> On 19/10/12 01:34, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>> a) I am presuming we have agreement that the PicketLink version for the
>> consolidated workspace should be v3.x
> +1, I've gone ahead and updated the version number. On a site note,
> some of the LDAPIdentityStore tests have started failing and I'm not
> sure why. Anil, if you have time could you please take a look at this?
> Otherwise I can delve deeper into it later today.
Shane, can you add @Ignore to the ldapim tests for now? I will take a
look on Mon.
>> b) Regarding the module name "core" that most of us want renamed to "cdi".
>> I do not see issues with it called "core" as long as PL 2.x federation
>> users on non-ee environments upgrading to PL3 do not have a requirement
>> to have CDI/Weld jars. Ideally we cannot force users to require Weld
>> jars to run SAML on tomcat, for example.
> I'm -1 on renaming core to cdi. To me this seems like a ridiculous
> idea, akin to Spring Security calling their core module "spring", or
> Hibernate calling their core module "db". If we're going to be pushing
> PicketLink as being a complete security integration framework for EE6
> then it would be redundant and non-intuitive to name the core module
> cdi. As for PicketLink Federation, if there is an SE requirement for it
> then we can just implement it as a submodule like we've done for IDM,
> and make a note in the documentation that it is possible to use it
> standalone in an SE environment.
security-dev mailing list
security-dev at lists.jboss.org
More information about the security-dev