[wildfly-dev] Pending core split

[Tomaž Cerar]

I think that for start we can make it by default enablable in full distro.

Once this is done, and extra work is done on trimming down dependencies to
go as near JDK as possible
it could be moved to core distro.

Rome was not build in a day, why would KeyCloak integration /
implementation be done in just one step.

Isn't it better that we start somewhere to get it out to the people to test
it as soon as possible
and when it is ready we decide where it is best resting place and how to
get there.




On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Darran Lofthouse <
darran.lofthouse at jboss.com> wrote:

>
>  > The central question is, do we want Keycloak to work out of the box?
>  > Before this issue was known, everyone answered "yes".
>
> I think here we had reached the point we were answering the question "do
> we want it enableable out of the box?" and the answer to that was "yes"
>
> What has not been defined since the split started is what "out of the
> box" actually means now, are we talking out of the box for the core or
> out of the box for a complete assembled server?
>
> On 01/07/14 12:55, Stan Silvert wrote:
> > On 6/30/2014 10:43 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> >> It really sounds like this should not be part of core, but should be
> >> something extra that just integrates with the core.
> > That may be true, but it's not a decision that should depend on how many
> > modules must be added.
> >
> > The central question is, do we want Keycloak to work out of the box?
> > Before this issue was known, everyone answered "yes".
> >
> > Should we really determine our feature set based on how many modules it
> > requires?   I don't think we want do that, which is why I'm having
> > doubts about the current approach.
> >
> >>
> >> In all honesty we are highly unlikely to ever have accepted a PR that
> >> added all these dependencies to the core in any case, so it is a
> >> problem that would have had to be solved at some point anyway.
> >>
> >> Stuart
> >>
> >> Stan Silvert wrote:
> >>> I'm starting to have doubts about this split.
> >>>
> >>> Right now I'm trying to integrate the Keycloak (client-side) adapter
> >>> into build-core so that the web console can use Keycloak for
> >>> authentication.  The problem is that there is a huge web of
> dependencies
> >>> that must be moved over from build to build-core.
> >>>
> >>> What exactly is the split trying to solve?
> >>>
> >>> Stan
> >>>
> >>> On 6/27/2014 12:19 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> So I am moderately confident that we will be ready to split out
> Wildfly
> >>>> core into a separate repository early next week (I'm not saying that
> it
> >>>> will definitely happen in this time frame, just that it should be
> >>>> possible).
> >>>>
> >>>> Once this is ready to go I think the basic process will be:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Code freeze on Master
> >>>> - Create the core repo, push new rewritten core history
> >>>> - Release core 1.0.0.Beta1
> >>>> - Create PR against core WF repo that deletes everything in core, and
> >>>> uses the core 1.0.0.Beta1 release
> >>>> - End of code freeze
> >>>>
> >>>> Stuart
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
> >>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> wildfly-dev mailing list
> >>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wildfly-dev mailing list
> > wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20140703/6caf5ffe/attachment.html