geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Other MP Specs @ Geronimo?
Date Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:52:43 GMT
Cool, git repo's been requested.

@Romain I will need your input.  You had implemented semaphores in
deltaspike, including that in this project would help align better to the
bulkhead requirements.  Any concerns if we base some logic off of that?  A
lot can get cleaned up in the mean time since we can base on Java 8.

John

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:27 AM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:

> +1 go ahead. Happy to help!
>
> LieGrue,
> Strub
>
> Am 05.09.2017 um 01:56 schrieb John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
>
> Gah zombie thread.
>
> So I want to pick back up at least with fault tolerance.  Would anyone be
> opposed to starting up a repo on it?  I'm thinking of the name "Safeguard"
> so that it would either be "org.apache.safeguard" or
> "org.apache.geronimo.safeguard" as group id in maven (xbean uses the
> former, config the latter).
>
> I've given it a bit more thought as well.  While I'm cautious about
> Failsafe's future, its something where we can start off as a dependency and
> grow and replace, or look to get a grant or just import the source code
> leaving the original headers if need be.
>
> I do have a preference to create this as a git repo.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:45 AM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> I would love implementing the mp jwt spec at Geronimo.
>> But I've not closely followed the discussions and current state.
>> So I cannot really make an educated guess right now about whether it
>> already makes sense to implement it.
>>
>> Although I think it cannot be wrong to start tinkering with it in a
>> seperate component.
>> And then we know a lot better what it is able to and what not.
>> This is not yet a guarantee that we release anything in that direction.
>> But by playing with it we don't loose anything. An the worst case we
>> learn a lot ;)
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 30.07.2017 um 23:58 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 30 juil. 2017 23:54, "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org> a
>> écrit :
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:44 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is there any actual spec?
>> >
>> > Not sure what you mean.  Rhetorical question?
>> >
>> > No no, for now MP is a lot of marketing - server part is nothing for
>> instance. If no spec but future specs I d wait it is close to release.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For jwt we can impl from scratch, it is not hard and would avoid  a big
>> dep and enable some consistency using jsonb.
>> >
>> > JWT is a lot more complicated than that.  It's more than reading the
>> JSON, but also ensuring proper crypto signatures, on the generation and
>> consumption side.  You need to be able to reach out to other servers to
>> fetch keys and handle extra validation checks.  There's a standard set of
>> claims that's being requested as well.  Yes, the json smart dependency
>> bites, maybe we can convince the author to switch to the javax.json
>> namespace?
>> >
>> > It is trivial to impl on java once you have json link, ~200 lines for
>> the needed part. Javax.json is maybe not rigyt bit building on it sounds
>> right - actually did on johnzon with quite successes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 30 juil. 2017 23:28, "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org> a
>> écrit :
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I know Mark brought in Config to Geronimo.  We have at least 3 more
>> specs coming in MP 1.2 (Fault Tolerance, Health, JWT Processing), possibly
>> Metrics and OpenTracing.
>> >
>> > I have a fully functioning JWT Processing impl based on jose (
>> https://bitbucket.org/connect2id/nimbus-jose-jwt/src ) which I'd be
>> happy to bring over to Geronimo.
>> >
>> > Health is a tricky one, may make sense to start from scratch, or bring
>> in pieces of the former Sirona podling to start a health checker.
>> >
>> > I had started on a Fault Tolerance implementation, based on the work
>> from failsafe.  However, from talking to the developer offline I'm a bit
>> worried about relying on Failsafe.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts on bringing these into Geronimo?
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message