Re: [security-dev] PicketLink Version and "Core" Module name

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.

> 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.