[security-dev] PicketLink Version and "Core" Module name
Shane Bryzak
sbryzak at redhat.com
Thu Oct 18 16:09:15 EDT 2012
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.
> 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
More information about the security-dev
mailing list