IMO let's add the -with-security BOM only for EAP 6.2 On 9 Sep 2013, at 22:33, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > As we discussed, 6.1 is shipped with PicketLink 2.1. > > The artifacts available with the Security BOM are for 2.5 (eg.: picketlink-api, picketlink-impl). So I'm not sure if makes sense to have those artifacts as they don't exist with 2.1. > > Users using 6.1 are PicketLink Federation users, which in most cases is just a matter of the PicketLink modules usage. But some times, users want to extend PicketLink Federation features and for that they need the 2.1 libraries on the classpath of their applications. > > Wondering if is better to change EAP 6.1 BOMs to match 2.1 artifacts. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Pedro Igor" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Anil Saldhana" <asaldhan(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Skopek" <pskopek(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Marek Novotný" <mnovotny(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 6:12:54 PM > Subject: Re: Picketlink version on EAP BOMs > > Adding Pedro Igor... > > Em 09/09/13 17:36, Rafael Benevides escreveu: >> Hi all, >> >> We released today the EAP BOMs version 6.2.0-redhat-1 with Picketlink >> 2.5.1. >> >> Under EAP BOMs we will maintain for now two branches: 6.2.x and 6.1.x >> >> I was wondering that our branch 6.1.x should be fixed with the right >> EAP 6.1.x version: Picketlink 2.1.6. >> >> Today I talked to Pedro Igor who told me that it seems a not easy job >> to have the -with-security BOM for EAP 6.1.x/PL 2.16 for many reason >> that he can explain better than me. >> >> Another approach that I'd like to query everyone is the possibility to >> remove -with-security BOM from EAP 6.1.x if it is not possible to have >> this BOM working fine for EAP 6.1.x >> >> I expected to hear your comments about the desired/right way to have >> EAP 6.1.x BOM with -with-security/Picketlink BOM. >> >> Thanks >>

IMO let's add the -with-security BOM only for EAP 6.2 On 9 Sep 2013, at 22:33, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > As we discussed, 6.1 is shipped with PicketLink 2.1. > > The artifacts available with the Security BOM are for 2.5 (eg.: picketlink-api, picketlink-impl). So I'm not sure if makes sense to have those artifacts as they don't exist with 2.1. > > Users using 6.1 are PicketLink Federation users, which in most cases is just a matter of the PicketLink modules usage. But some times, users want to extend PicketLink Federation features and for that they need the 2.1 libraries on the classpath of their applications. > > Wondering if is better to change EAP 6.1 BOMs to match 2.1 artifacts. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Pedro Igor" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Anil Saldhana" <asaldhan(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Skopek" <pskopek(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Marek Novotný" <mnovotny(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 6:12:54 PM > Subject: Re: Picketlink version on EAP BOMs > > Adding Pedro Igor... > > Em 09/09/13 17:36, Rafael Benevides escreveu: >> Hi all, >> >> We released today the EAP BOMs version 6.2.0-redhat-1 with Picketlink >> 2.5.1. >> >> Under EAP BOMs we will maintain for now two branches: 6.2.x and 6.1.x >> >> I was wondering that our branch 6.1.x should be fixed with the right >> EAP 6.1.x version: Picketlink 2.1.6. >> >> Today I talked to Pedro Igor who told me that it seems a not easy job >> to have the -with-security BOM for EAP 6.1.x/PL 2.16 for many reason >> that he can explain better than me. >> >> Another approach that I'd like to query everyone is the possibility to >> remove -with-security BOM from EAP 6.1.x if it is not possible to have >> this BOM working fine for EAP 6.1.x >> >> I expected to hear your comments about the desired/right way to have >> EAP 6.1.x BOM with -with-security/Picketlink BOM. >> >> Thanks >>

Well, If we use -redhat-x on these BOM we are doing what productization team does. And then we can't update the versions because we lock on the product release. My interpretation is that these BOMs are community ones but focusing on the EAP 6.2.0 product but it still having upstream/community development cycle. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I think this whole neworg is. Em 10/09/13 17:40, Pedro Igor Silva escreveu: > Btw, the PL version in EAP BOMs must be -redhat-# ? The artifact's jars must match the same shipped with EAP, right ? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Anil Saldhana" <asaldhan(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Skopek" <pskopek(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Marek Novotný" <mnovotny(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:50:37 PM > Subject: Re: Picketlink version on EAP BOMs > > I don't. I'm fine with -security only for EAP 6.2. > > Just tried to show a possible (and minor) reason why we may need the -security with the 2.1 libraries. > > So, +1. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Anil Saldhana" <asaldhan(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Skopek" <pskopek(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Marek Novotný" <mnovotny(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:19:55 AM > Subject: Re: Picketlink version on EAP BOMs > > > +1 on remove -with-security from EAP 6.1 > > Anyone has any objections on it ? > > > Em 10/09/13 10:17, Pete Muir escreveu: >> IMO let's add the -with-security BOM only for EAP 6.2 >> >> On 9 Sep 2013, at 22:33, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> As we discussed, 6.1 is shipped with PicketLink 2.1. >>> >>> The artifacts available with the Security BOM are for 2.5 (eg.: picketlink-api, picketlink-impl). So I'm not sure if makes sense to have those artifacts as they don't exist with 2.1. >>> >>> Users using 6.1 are PicketLink Federation users, which in most cases is just a matter of the PicketLink modules usage. But some times, users want to extend PicketLink Federation features and for that they need the 2.1 libraries on the classpath of their applications. >>> >>> Wondering if is better to change EAP 6.1 BOMs to match 2.1 artifacts. >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Pedro Igor" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Anil Saldhana" <asaldhan(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Skopek" <pskopek(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Marek Novotný" <mnovotny(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 6:12:54 PM >>> Subject: Re: Picketlink version on EAP BOMs >>> >>> Adding Pedro Igor... >>> >>> Em 09/09/13 17:36, Rafael Benevides escreveu: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> We released today the EAP BOMs version 6.2.0-redhat-1 with Picketlink >>>> 2.5.1. >>>> >>>> Under EAP BOMs we will maintain for now two branches: 6.2.x and 6.1.x >>>> >>>> I was wondering that our branch 6.1.x should be fixed with the right >>>> EAP 6.1.x version: Picketlink 2.1.6. >>>> >>>> Today I talked to Pedro Igor who told me that it seems a not easy job >>>> to have the -with-security BOM for EAP 6.1.x/PL 2.16 for many reason >>>> that he can explain better than me. >>>> >>>> Another approach that I'd like to query everyone is the possibility to >>>> remove -with-security BOM from EAP 6.1.x if it is not possible to have >>>> this BOM working fine for EAP 6.1.x >>>> >>>> I expected to hear your comments about the desired/right way to have >>>> EAP 6.1.x BOM with -with-security/Picketlink BOM. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>>