Re: [wildfly-dev] Wildfly layers

The subsystem. So we could imagine that user would install both elytron and picketbox. On 05/12/2018 14:56, Darran Lofthouse wrote: Do you mean Elytron or the Elytron Subsystem? I believe yes the subsystem does have that dependency but it is only temporary until PicketBox is removed. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:51 PM Jean-Francois Denise <jdenise(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Darran, > > elytron seems to have a dependency on picketbox for jacc support. Am I > right? > > On 05/12/2018 12:04, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > > Yes we can remove it entirely ;-) > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:13 PM Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> On 04-12-18 23:15, Brian Stansberry wrote: >> >> Picketbox layer >>> >>> Because we want at some point to get rid-off this dependency, I am >>> wandering if we should really define a layer for it. Could be that any >>> dependency on it would imply the use of legacy-security layer. >>> Picketbox >>> is implicit when legacy-security layer is provisioned. >>> >> >> The independent use is the management vault. Using that shouldn't >> require everything in the current p-b module though. And arguably you could >> say that use case means you need the vault tool and thus whatever layer has >> it. (You don't need the vault tool though, not on the server.) >> >> Can we change the management vault somehow to not need PicketBox at all >> anymore? >> >> Carlo >> _______________________________________________ >> wildfly-dev mailing list >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev > > >