[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: jwt-auth CDI base version

If you already have a PR submitted even better.  We should accept it.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:07 AM Rudy De Busscher <rdebusscher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not that hard, except maybe for the NonBinding thing which is removed from @Claim.

All the rest was done in 20 minutes or so.

On 23 April 2018 at 13:03, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeanouii@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Overall same view here. 
How hard is it to make it 1.2 compliant? 

Le lun. 23 avr. 2018 à 12:25, John D. Ament <johndament@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
MP has made it very clear they don't care about portable libraries, and only care about the vendor provided solutions.  The requirement is that vendors provide a CDI 1.2 runtime to use.  Liberty provides a way to switch between them (1.2, 2.0).  I think Swarm may have moved to 2.0; not sure.

I think Safeguard also compiles against CDI 2.0, but I don't think I'm using any 2.0 features in it so it may run properly against 1.2.

Personally, if we have a user who wants it for 1.2, and the effort is minimal we should appease that user to help build out the community.


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:17 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi guys,

current codebase uses cdi 2.0 which means it can be used on tomee, meecrowave,  openwebbeans etc...

Rudy opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6604 to move it to cdi 1.2 - BTW "Microprofile depends on CDI 1.2, so using 2.0 is wrong." is wrong since some years you can always use a version *>=* of the minimum requirement for spec impls.
Technically I don't see a strong need to do it but I'd like to get your feeling about it to know what we do of the issue.

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