On 3 Oct 2012, at 08:10, Anil Saldhana wrote:
On 10/01/2012 07:00 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
> It seems odd to me that CDI is called core? I thought the idea was that picketlink
core would be pure Java SE, and CDI support gets added on top.
>
> But +1 to the merge. The more we can put under one project, with one brand the
better.
>
> I talked to Anil about merging PicketBox into PicketLink as well, as "just
another module" and I think this will make things a lot simple for users to
understand.
Pete, lets wait for PL codebase to stabilize before figuring out
PicketBox.
:-) Yes, we don't need to do this now, just throwing around ideas.
As I said, from JDF perspective and pitching to application
developers, it makes sense to go with PL. But for framework writers and
folks dealing with AS security and stuff, they have to do PBox.
Still not sure why that means we can't do it like the IDM - as a pure Java SE
submodule of PicketLink. This to me is more about brand simplicity than anything.
>
> On 1 Oct 2012, at 15:30, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>
>> In the interests of presenting a clear message to our developers, one of the
steps we'll be taking is to consolidate the various PicketLink projects into a single
project and presenting this as the "go to" solution for application security.
For now I've merged the CDI and IDM subprojects (these are now submodules of the
PicketLink project, with "CDI" renamed to "Core") and the plan is to
eventually merge the social and federation modules also.
>>
>> You can find the new GitHub repository here:
https://github.com/picketlink
(renamed from picketlink-cdi) and the picketlink-idm repository has now been deleted. For
anyone working on these modules, please use the new repository from now on.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Shane
_______________________________________________
security-dev mailing list
security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev