Re: [security-dev] PicketLink restructure

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 >>>