MP-JWT progress

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MP-JWT progress

Jean-Louis Monteiro-2
Hi community,


So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.

With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).

Now the question is how do we proceed?
Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.

Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.

Here is the PR for discussion

Cheers
Jean-Louis


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau

2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>:
Hi community,


So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.

With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).

Now the question is how do we proceed?
Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.

I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
 

Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.

+1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
 

Here is the PR for discussion
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123

Cheers
Jean-Louis


--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau
If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:

2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>:
Hi community,


So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.

With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).

Now the question is how do we proceed?
Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.

I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
 

Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.

+1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
 

Here is the PR for discussion
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123

Cheers
Jean-Louis


--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

John D. Ament
I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:

2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>:
Hi community,


So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.

With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT TCK
I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).

Now the question is how do we proceed?
Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.

I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
 

Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.

+1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
 

Here is the PR for discussion
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123

Cheers
Jean-Louis


--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau
quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-12 16:33 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <[hidden email]>:
OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo.

On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> So what's the conclusion here?
>
> Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> there along side with other implementations?
> Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
>
> I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move on
> with the contribution.
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > [hidden email]>
> > :
> >
> > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > There's
> > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > >
> > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may well
> > be
> > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > defined,
> > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > >
> > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate repos
> > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to
> > shift
> > > this off to Geronimo?
> > >
> >
> > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> what
> > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share
> the
> > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired it
> > is fine as well.
> >
> > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> webprofile,
> > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > >
> > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not be
> > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> clear
> > > from
> > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > >
> > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european
> > time)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> :
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> implementation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in
> > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a
> > bit
> > > > > like
> > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the
> > small
> > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> config
> > > > etc).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> > > remain
> > > > in
> > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Jean-Louis Monteiro-2
I can do it tomorrow morning romain 

Le 18 mars 2018 18:31, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
quick heads up: if no objection in between I plan to start creating the
project tomorrow to let JL importing the code he did.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>

2018-03-12 16:33 GMT+01:00 Rudy De Busscher <[hidden email]>:

> OK (non-binding of course :) for generic classes at Geronimo.
>
> On 12 March 2018 at 16:01, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > So what's the conclusion here?
> >
> > Should I request a git repo on geronimo and extract all generic classes
> > there along side with other implementations?
> > Or do you guys prefer another tomee repo with the MP-JWT impl?
> >
> > I don't mind if they go here and there, just need to know so I can move
> on
> > with the contribution.
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2018-03-09 12:37 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > :
> > >
> > > > Currently this in a PR, so it hasn't actually been merged anywhere.
> > > There's
> > > > some at least some TomEE specific code, so some modules need defining
> > > > before it can be "moved" in my view.
> > > >
> > > > Rudy's point is good one - no doubt a generic, reusable module may
> well
> > > be
> > > > what we end up with. Wherever that lives when it has clearly been
> > > defined,
> > > > it needs documenting and showing how to use it.
> > > >
> > > > We talked previously about being able to have modules in separate
> repos
> > > > under TomEE. Is there some issue with doing that? What's the rush to
> > > shift
> > > > this off to Geronimo?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No rush, geronimo will have a jwt-auth impl and I was waiting JL push
> > what
> > > he did before speaking of creating a project @G. I would like to share
> > the
> > > same impl with tomee to avoid to x2 the effort. however if not desired
> it
> > > is fine as well.
> > >
> > > It is also important to keep in mind that on tomee side there is *no*
> > > specific code, only fixes in the propagation which also impact
> > webprofile,
> > > nothing linked to MP or this particular spec.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not saying we should move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we move the generic stuff for JWT Auth to Geronimo, it will not
> be
> > > > > enough to have it completely functional. And that should be made
> > clear
> > > > from
> > > > > the beginning for all potential usages.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9 March 2018 at 12:20, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
> > > > > > > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european
> > > time)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > > > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> > > > > > ee-8-high-performance>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> :
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hi community,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT
> > implementation.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks
> Romain
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part
> in
> > > > > MP-JWT
> > > > > > >>> TCK
> > > > > > >>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
> > > > > > >>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec
> - a
> > > bit
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the
> > > small
> > > > > > >> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p,
> > config
> > > > > etc).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can
> > > > remain
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Here is the PR for discussion
> > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

David Blevins-2
In reply to this post by John D. Ament
I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore.  Can we merge this at least?


-David

> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
>> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Hi community,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>>
>>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>>> TCK
>>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jean-Louis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau
@JL: ok I let you do

@David: hmm, not sure which part I missed but there is nothing to merge except the TCK part which requires to extract it from the PR. This is what JL will do tmr so we can merge it after.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-18 20:26 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore.  Can we merge this at least?


-David

> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
>> geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Hi community,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.
>>>>
>>>> With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
>>>> help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
>>>> TCK
>>>> I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is how do we proceed?
>>>> Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
>>> Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
>>> remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
>>>> TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the PR for discussion
>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jean-Louis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

David Blevins-2
In reply to this post by David Blevins-2
In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now.

If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred.


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore.  Can we merge this at least?


-David

On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
wrote:

If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>

2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:


2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
:

Hi community,


So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.

With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
TCK
I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).

Now the question is how do we proceed?
Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.


I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).



Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.


+1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration



Here is the PR for discussion
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123

Cheers
Jean-Louis


--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau


2018-03-18 20:38 GMT+01:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now.

If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred.

I'm not following the rational here. Let me try to summarize another time for you to ensure we speak of the same thing:

1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
2. code we worked on with JL has no tomee dependency (see 4 to be complete here)
3. as the MP-Config work Roberto did, we'll need a TCK module (next to the Roberto's one) for jwt-auth spec + a modification of the MP distro
4. TomEE had some propagation bug we need to fix - MP or not since it happens with a plain servlet

So the JWT-Auth PR for TomEE can be:

A. this one which means TomEE will have an implementation of JWT-Auth and Geronimo another one
B. the JWT-Auth code moves to Geronimo and TomEE merges from this PR 3 and 4

Just to restate it since it seems we restart from a blank page ;): I'm -1 on A to avoid to split our effort and noise as ASF and +1 for B.
 


On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore.  Can we merge this at least?


-David

On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
wrote:

If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to
geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>

2018-03-06 11:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:


2018-03-06 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
:

Hi community,


So we now have something close in terms of MP-JWT implementation.

With the playground branch I've been working on (Thanks Romain for the
help), we now pass 100% of the TCK (including a missing part in MP-JWT
TCK
I have eagerly added - see ticket on MP-JWT).

Now the question is how do we proceed?
Knowing that most of the code is not TomEE specific.


I'd move it to G to a new git repo keeping only the tck exec - a bit like
Roberto started with config. I'll be happy to help fixing the small
remaining enhancements to do (jwt parsing based on jsonb/p, config etc).



Only few things are in the TomcatSecurityService but that can remain in
TomEE because it's not really MP-JWT specific either.


+1, was overdue anyway for our servlet-ejb integration



Here is the PR for discussion
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123

Cheers
Jean-Louis


--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

David Blevins-2

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee

As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right?

Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?  Something not branded tomee or geronimo.


-David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau


Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee

As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right?

Yes


Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?  Something not branded tomee or geronimo.

This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no more a project delivery by itself.

Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?



-David


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

John D. Ament


On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee

As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right?

Yes


Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?  Something not branded tomee or geronimo.

This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no more a project delivery by itself.

Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in geronimo that is TomEE specific.  I haven't looked at the code (as far as I can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied to your container.  So I don't believe its a good fit.

Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
 



-David


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

David Blevins-2
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?

I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer.  Objections were made that weren't resolved.  The discussion started as what do "we" do with we meaning TomEE and Geronimo.  At some point in the middle it was stated Geronimo has already made a decision.  I also have the feeling people may have opinions that are in-between a full TomEE vs Geronimo decision, such as wanting to put work into inching closer to get a better view before deciding.

I think all these things are fine, but we need some healthy votes so people can move forward with clear support.


-David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau
In reply to this post by John D. Ament


2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:


On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee

As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right?

Yes


Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?  Something not branded tomee or geronimo.

This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no more a project delivery by itself.

Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in geronimo that is TomEE specific.  I haven't looked at the code (as far as I can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied to your container.  So I don't believe its a good fit.

Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?

As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
 
 



-David



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

John D. Ament


On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:


On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee

As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right?

Yes


Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?  Something not branded tomee or geronimo.

This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no more a project delivery by itself.

Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in geronimo that is TomEE specific.  I haven't looked at the code (as far as I can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied to your container.  So I don't believe its a good fit.

Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?

As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.


Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to say.
 
 
 



-David



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MP-JWT progress

Romain Manni-Bucau
Jwt-auth impl doesnt depend on tomee and is reusable so must not be put in tomee codebase.

Hope it is clearer this time.

Le 19 mars 2018 18:54, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
>>>
>>> As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have
>>> been created anywhere yet, is that right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to collaborating
>>> on a reusable JWT library under the TomEE project for a change?  Something
>>> not branded tomee or geronimo.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is what was proposed to be created @g which is just an umbrella, no
>>> more a project delivery by itself.
>>>
>>> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
>>>
>>
>> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am against bringing something in
>> geronimo that is TomEE specific.  I haven't looked at the code (as far as I
>> can tell, nothing is linked in this thread so I have no idea if code even
>> exists) but based on what I've seen with implementing JWT it's closely tied
>> to your container.  So I don't believe its a good fit.
>>
>> Why is your preference to bring this into geronimo?
>>
>
> As mentionned there is no link to TomEE in the jwt-auth codebase so no
> reason to hold that code in something not reusable at tomee.
>


Too many negatives in that sentence to make sense of what you're trying to
say.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>