Anil,
Just fixed that. Sending a PR.
Regards.
Pedro Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
To: security-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev