11:36 a.m.
Pete/Shane,
not sure on the exact mechanics. I will defer it to Shane.
Wondering about the following:
PL3 core aims to be a portable security extension of Apache Deltaspike.
There
is very little direct dependence on DS. What DS brings is a core CDI
enabled runtime.
So, why not have the following?
(PL3) + (PL3/DS Bridge) => EE Applications running on Apache DS on EE
containers.
PL3 => CDI enabled EE Applications running on JBoss AS7+
Basically this will let PL3 get into an AS release easily since it does
not have any dependencies
on incubating snapshots.
Now this PL/DS bridge may be a lean DS Security Extension or some minor
abstractions.
Regards,
Anil
On 02/15/2013 09:18 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
I guess we may have to create a leaner Deltaspike security
extension.
Currently it pulls a lot of core DS classes. We may not need a lot of
the crafty stuff
that exists in Apache DS Security Extension, just to kick in a Security
Interceptor.
On 02/15/2013 09:09 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
> I'll try to talk to Shane synchronously, as I think this is possible.
>
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 14:54, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>
>> I think I brought over more classes than PL core needed. But things were
>> broken at runtime. Shane took a look and said that we will pull more
>> core DS classes if we bring the additional security related classes that
>> I missed. So we decided to revert and think of a plan B. :)
>>
>> On 02/15/2013 05:49 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>> Does this commit cover everything, or did you need more?
>>>
>>>
https://github.com/picketlink/picketlink/commit/2a9d1894dc1e15320d227377c...
>>>
>>> Particularly the config stuff and project stage stuff I would expect us to be
able remove the need for.
>>>
>>> On 15 Feb 2013, at 04:34, Jason Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> It may not be the best option, but we should probably stick with v0.3 for
now.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 18:31, Anil Saldhana <asaldhan(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Jason Porter
<lightguard.jp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there anything in v0.4 you need, or can you simply get by with
v0.3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 17:29, Anil Saldhana
<Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scratch this plan. Shane and I determined that this is
larger than we
>>>>>>> originally thought -> lots of DS classes need to be
forked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/13/2013 10:25 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> PicketLink3 is on the final stretch of release cycles.
One of the
>>>>>>>> concerns I have had is the Apache Deltaspike dependency
which is some
>>>>>>>> type of incubating snapshot. Since there are very few
Deltaspike classes
>>>>>>>> (3-5 in number) that we depend on, the following strategy
should work:
>>>>>>>> - Copy the source files (Retaining Apache Headers) as it
is from Apache
>>>>>>>> Deltaspike to a PicketLink namespace such as :
org.picketlink.deltaspike.*
>>>>>>>> - Remove the Apache Deltaspike dependency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In few months, when Apache Deltaspike has proper
releases, we can remove
>>>>>>>> the PicketLink Deltaspike forked classes and bring back
the Apache
>>>>>>>> Deltaspike dependency back. I do not think PicketLink
users will
>>>>>>>> directly code to DS classes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ran this with Pete Muir, Shane and Jason Porter and
they all agreed
>>>>>>>> that this is a good strategy (I did refine the strategy
based on Shane's
>>>>>>>> comments).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Anil
>>>>>>>