As a PicketLink user, I don't think that I would want them to be wrapped into an EAR. I agree that it doesn't match a deployment environment, and I am afraid that it would tend to mislead people. Can't the primary readme for these quickstarts simply explain the required order of deployment and dependencies? Then each quickstart can reference the prerequisite setup. This makes the most sense to me from a user's perspective. How complicated are these relationships? I'm assuming that the primary thing is that the IDP needs to be deployed first? ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:13:46 PM > Subject: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts > > Hi All, > > After discussing with Sande about the best way to port the PicketLink > Federation (SAML SSO) Quickstarts [1] to the PicketLink JDF Quickstarts > [2], she asked me to open a thread to collect some more suggestions > about the best way of doing it. > > Basically, the 'issue' we have is that our federation quickstarts depend > on each other. This is important because users won't get the whole > functionality if they deploy just one of the quickstarts. Those > quickstarts demonstrate SSO, so we need an authentication authority, > which we call IdP (Identity Provider), and its relying parties, which we > call SP (Service Provider). > > Today we have 5 different IdP applications, and a bunch of SP ones. Each > SP relies on a specific IdP, so in order to get functionality working we > need them deployed together. > > Those quickstarts from [1] are not new, users and also customers are very > used to see them this way(as separated WARs which you deploy and test > our functionality). Sande suggested us to think about having a EAR with > all related applications, but this goes against PL real world use cases > and gives a very wrong understanding about PL usage. For us and our > users, the best thing is keep each quickstart as a single WAR. > > So, given all that, I would like to collect some feedback about the best > way to document those quickstarts in their README files. Can we have a > section to reference other related quickstarts ? > > Probably with links to other quickstarts so we can tell users what they > need to do to get the environment properly set ? > > Any other suggestion ? > > [1] https://github.com/picketlink2/picketlink-quickstarts/tree/master/saml > [2] https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-picketlink-quickstarts > > Best regards. > Pedro Igor > _______________________________________________ > jdf-dev mailing list > jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev > _______________________________________________ jdf-dev mailing list jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

As a PicketLink user, I don't think that I would want them to be wrapped into an EAR. I agree that it doesn't match a deployment environment, and I am afraid that it would tend to mislead people. Can't the primary readme for these quickstarts simply explain the required order of deployment and dependencies? Then each quickstart can reference the prerequisite setup. This makes the most sense to me from a user's perspective. How complicated are these relationships? I'm assuming that the primary thing is that the IDP needs to be deployed first? ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:13:46 PM > Subject: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts > > Hi All, > > After discussing with Sande about the best way to port the PicketLink > Federation (SAML SSO) Quickstarts [1] to the PicketLink JDF Quickstarts > [2], she asked me to open a thread to collect some more suggestions > about the best way of doing it. > > Basically, the 'issue' we have is that our federation quickstarts depend > on each other. This is important because users won't get the whole > functionality if they deploy just one of the quickstarts. Those > quickstarts demonstrate SSO, so we need an authentication authority, > which we call IdP (Identity Provider), and its relying parties, which we > call SP (Service Provider). > > Today we have 5 different IdP applications, and a bunch of SP ones. Each > SP relies on a specific IdP, so in order to get functionality working we > need them deployed together. > > Those quickstarts from [1] are not new, users and also customers are very > used to see them this way(as separated WARs which you deploy and test > our functionality). Sande suggested us to think about having a EAR with > all related applications, but this goes against PL real world use cases > and gives a very wrong understanding about PL usage. For us and our > users, the best thing is keep each quickstart as a single WAR. > > So, given all that, I would like to collect some feedback about the best > way to document those quickstarts in their README files. Can we have a > section to reference other related quickstarts ? > > Probably with links to other quickstarts so we can tell users what they > need to do to get the environment properly set ? > > Any other suggestion ? > > [1] https://github.com/picketlink2/picketlink-quickstarts/tree/master/saml > [2] https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-picketlink-quickstarts > > Best regards. > Pedro Igor > _______________________________________________ > jdf-dev mailing list > jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev > _______________________________________________ jdf-dev mailing list jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

I'm ok about describing the order of deployment and dependencies at the top level/repository README file. Sande, can we follow this path ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Sande Gilda" <sgilda(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:56:52 PM Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts Sorry Sande, my bad :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sande Gilda" <sgilda(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Jess Sightler" <jsightle(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:18:59 PM Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts I never suggested an EAR! I feel so misunderstood! ;-) Would a pattern similar to the inter-app quickstart work for this? See https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.3.x-devel... On 02/24/2014 02:10 PM, Jess Sightler wrote: > As a PicketLink user, I don't think that I would want them to be wrapped into an EAR. I agree that it doesn't match a deployment environment, and I am afraid that it would tend to mislead people. > > Can't the primary readme for these quickstarts simply explain the required order of deployment and dependencies? Then each quickstart can reference the prerequisite setup. This makes the most sense to me from a user's perspective. > > How complicated are these relationships? I'm assuming that the primary thing is that the IDP needs to be deployed first? > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:13:46 PM >> Subject: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts >> >> Hi All, >> >> After discussing with Sande about the best way to port the PicketLink >> Federation (SAML SSO) Quickstarts [1] to the PicketLink JDF Quickstarts >> [2], she asked me to open a thread to collect some more suggestions >> about the best way of doing it. >> >> Basically, the 'issue' we have is that our federation quickstarts depend >> on each other. This is important because users won't get the whole >> functionality if they deploy just one of the quickstarts. Those >> quickstarts demonstrate SSO, so we need an authentication authority, >> which we call IdP (Identity Provider), and its relying parties, which we >> call SP (Service Provider). >> >> Today we have 5 different IdP applications, and a bunch of SP ones. Each >> SP relies on a specific IdP, so in order to get functionality working we >> need them deployed together. >> >> Those quickstarts from [1] are not new, users and also customers are very >> used to see them this way(as separated WARs which you deploy and test >> our functionality). Sande suggested us to think about having a EAR with >> all related applications, but this goes against PL real world use cases >> and gives a very wrong understanding about PL usage. For us and our >> users, the best thing is keep each quickstart as a single WAR. >> >> So, given all that, I would like to collect some feedback about the best >> way to document those quickstarts in their README files. Can we have a >> section to reference other related quickstarts ? >> >> Probably with links to other quickstarts so we can tell users what they >> need to do to get the environment properly set ? >> >> Any other suggestion ? >> >> [1] https://github.com/picketlink2/picketlink-quickstarts/tree/master/saml >> [2] https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-picketlink-quickstarts >> >> Best regards. >> Pedro Igor >> _______________________________________________ >> jdf-dev mailing list >> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > jdf-dev mailing list > jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev _______________________________________________ jdf-dev mailing list jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

If I have understood the PL QuickStarts structure properly, then yes, I like that approach. :) ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sande Gilda" <sgilda(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Jess Sightler" <jsightle(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:18:59 PM > Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts > > I never suggested an EAR! I feel so misunderstood! ;-) > > Would a pattern similar to the inter-app quickstart work for this? See > https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.3.x-devel... > > On 02/24/2014 02:10 PM, Jess Sightler wrote: >> As a PicketLink user, I don't think that I would want them to be wrapped >> into an EAR. I agree that it doesn't match a deployment environment, and I >> am afraid that it would tend to mislead people. >> >> Can't the primary readme for these quickstarts simply explain the required >> order of deployment and dependencies? Then each quickstart can reference >> the prerequisite setup. This makes the most sense to me from a user's >> perspective. >> >> How complicated are these relationships? I'm assuming that the primary >> thing is that the IDP needs to be deployed first? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:13:46 PM >>> Subject: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> After discussing with Sande about the best way to port the PicketLink >>> Federation (SAML SSO) Quickstarts [1] to the PicketLink JDF >>> Quickstarts >>> [2], she asked me to open a thread to collect some more suggestions >>> about the best way of doing it. >>> >>> Basically, the 'issue' we have is that our federation quickstarts >>> depend >>> on each other. This is important because users won't get the whole >>> functionality if they deploy just one of the quickstarts. Those >>> quickstarts demonstrate SSO, so we need an authentication authority, >>> which we call IdP (Identity Provider), and its relying parties, which >>> we >>> call SP (Service Provider). >>> >>> Today we have 5 different IdP applications, and a bunch of SP ones. >>> Each >>> SP relies on a specific IdP, so in order to get functionality working >>> we >>> need them deployed together. >>> >>> Those quickstarts from [1] are not new, users and also customers are >>> very >>> used to see them this way(as separated WARs which you deploy and test >>> our functionality). Sande suggested us to think about having a EAR >>> with >>> all related applications, but this goes against PL real world use >>> cases >>> and gives a very wrong understanding about PL usage. For us and our >>> users, the best thing is keep each quickstart as a single WAR. >>> >>> So, given all that, I would like to collect some feedback about the >>> best >>> way to document those quickstarts in their README files. Can we have >>> a >>> section to reference other related quickstarts ? >>> >>> Probably with links to other quickstarts so we can tell users what >>> they >>> need to do to get the environment properly set ? >>> >>> Any other suggestion ? >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/picketlink2/picketlink-quickstarts/tree/master/saml >>> [2] https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-picketlink-quickstarts >>> >>> Best regards. >>> Pedro Igor >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jdf-dev mailing list >>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> jdf-dev mailing list >> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >

I'm almost done with porting the quickstarts. Tomorrow I'll push some changes, so you can review, ok ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sande Gilda" <sgilda(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Jess Sightler" <jsightle(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 5:43:54 PM Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts Sounds like we have no objections so far. :-) On 02/24/2014 03:08 PM, Jess Sightler wrote: > If I have understood the PL QuickStarts structure properly, then yes, I like that approach. :) > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sande Gilda" <sgilda(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Jess Sightler" <jsightle(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:18:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts >> >> I never suggested an EAR! I feel so misunderstood! ;-) >> >> Would a pattern similar to the inter-app quickstart work for this? See >> https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.3.x-devel... >> >> On 02/24/2014 02:10 PM, Jess Sightler wrote: >>> As a PicketLink user, I don't think that I would want them to be wrapped >>> into an EAR. I agree that it doesn't match a deployment environment, and I >>> am afraid that it would tend to mislead people. >>> >>> Can't the primary readme for these quickstarts simply explain the required >>> order of deployment and dependencies? Then each quickstart can reference >>> the prerequisite setup. This makes the most sense to me from a user's >>> perspective. >>> >>> How complicated are these relationships? I'm assuming that the primary >>> thing is that the IDP needs to be deployed first? >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:13:46 PM >>>> Subject: [jdf-dev] PicketLink Federation Quickstarts >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> After discussing with Sande about the best way to port the PicketLink >>>> Federation (SAML SSO) Quickstarts [1] to the PicketLink JDF >>>> Quickstarts >>>> [2], she asked me to open a thread to collect some more suggestions >>>> about the best way of doing it. >>>> >>>> Basically, the 'issue' we have is that our federation quickstarts >>>> depend >>>> on each other. This is important because users won't get the whole >>>> functionality if they deploy just one of the quickstarts. Those >>>> quickstarts demonstrate SSO, so we need an authentication authority, >>>> which we call IdP (Identity Provider), and its relying parties, which >>>> we >>>> call SP (Service Provider). >>>> >>>> Today we have 5 different IdP applications, and a bunch of SP ones. >>>> Each >>>> SP relies on a specific IdP, so in order to get functionality working >>>> we >>>> need them deployed together. >>>> >>>> Those quickstarts from [1] are not new, users and also customers are >>>> very >>>> used to see them this way(as separated WARs which you deploy and test >>>> our functionality). Sande suggested us to think about having a EAR >>>> with >>>> all related applications, but this goes against PL real world use >>>> cases >>>> and gives a very wrong understanding about PL usage. For us and our >>>> users, the best thing is keep each quickstart as a single WAR. >>>> >>>> So, given all that, I would like to collect some feedback about the >>>> best >>>> way to document those quickstarts in their README files. Can we have >>>> a >>>> section to reference other related quickstarts ? >>>> >>>> Probably with links to other quickstarts so we can tell users what >>>> they >>>> need to do to get the environment properly set ? >>>> >>>> Any other suggestion ? >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/picketlink2/picketlink-quickstarts/tree/master/saml >>>> [2] https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-picketlink-quickstarts >>>> >>>> Best regards. >>>> Pedro Igor >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jdf-dev mailing list >>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jdf-dev mailing list >>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev