MicroProfile 2.0

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

MicroProfile 2.0

Roberto Cortez
Hi folks,

I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>

With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look into it as well.

Cheers,
Roberto
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

David Blevins-2
How can people help?


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

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
>
> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look into it as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Roberto Cortez
Good question.

I think the community could help with the following topics:

 - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.

 - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might be tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what is missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go out there to find them.

 - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good candidates.

 - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our main concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant (or 2.x for that matter).

Cheers,
Roberto

> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> How can people help?
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
>>
>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look into it as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
Let's revive this discussion ...

We are working on build stability (see other thread).
I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API we
pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant.

Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as opposed
to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a
NoSuchMethodException.

So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)?
Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else?

Thoughts?


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


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Good question.
>
> I think the community could help with the following topics:
>
>  - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the
> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.
>
>  - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might be
> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what is
> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT
> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both
> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are
> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go out
> there to find them.
>
>  - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t
> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good candidates.
>
>  - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our main
> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant (or
> 2.x for that matter).
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
> > On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > How can people help?
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> >> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
> >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
> >>
> >> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be
> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some
> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look
> into it as well.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Roberto
> >
>
>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Roberto Cortez
Hi JL,

In my opinion, I think we should move to MP 2.0. We started with MP 1.3 to start to support something and because we didn’t have implementations to support 2.0, which we have now, aside from Fault Tolerance (work is being done on Geronimo at the moment).

There is already a PR with all of those fixes:
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>

We just need to combine this with the JWT 1.1 work.

Cheers,
Roberto

> On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:40, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Let's revive this discussion ...
>
> We are working on build stability (see other thread).
> I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API we
> pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant.
>
> Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as opposed
> to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a
> NoSuchMethodException.
>
> So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)?
> Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Good question.
>>
>> I think the community could help with the following topics:
>>
>> - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the
>> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.
>>
>> - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might be
>> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what is
>> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT
>> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both
>> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are
>> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go out
>> there to find them.
>>
>> - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t
>> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good candidates.
>>
>> - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our main
>> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant (or
>> 2.x for that matter).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>>
>>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> How can people help?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Blevins
>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <
>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
>>>>
>>>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be
>> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some
>> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look
>> into it as well.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Roberto
>>>
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Otávio Gonçalves de Santana
In reply to this post by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
JL, I like baby steps.
Maybe, keep MP 1.3, release a TomEE 8 RC-2, then upgrade the version to MP
2.0.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:40 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Let's revive this discussion ...
>
> We are working on build stability (see other thread).
> I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API we
> pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant.
>
> Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as opposed
> to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a
> NoSuchMethodException.
>
> So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)?
> Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Good question.
> >
> > I think the community could help with the following topics:
> >
> >  - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the
> > project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.
> >
> >  - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might
> be
> > tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what
> is
> > missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT
> > implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both
> > `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are
> > supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go
> out
> > there to find them.
> >
> >  - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t
> > have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good candidates.
> >
> >  - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our
> main
> > concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant
> (or
> > 2.x for that matter).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> >
> > > On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > How can people help?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Blevins
> > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > >> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez
> <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <
> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
> > >>
> > >> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be
> > compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some
> > discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look
> > into it as well.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Roberto
> > >
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Roberto Cortez
We already released a TomEE 8 M1 with MP 1.3 support.

And in reality, MP 2.x is the one we should be targeting with TomEE 8, since we have CDI 2.0.

> On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:49, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> JL, I like baby steps.
> Maybe, keep MP 1.3, release a TomEE 8 RC-2, then upgrade the version to MP
> 2.0.
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:40 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Let's revive this discussion ...
>>
>> We are working on build stability (see other thread).
>> I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API we
>> pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant.
>>
>> Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as opposed
>> to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a
>> NoSuchMethodException.
>>
>> So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)?
>> Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good question.
>>>
>>> I think the community could help with the following topics:
>>>
>>> - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the
>>> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.
>>>
>>> - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might
>> be
>>> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what
>> is
>>> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT
>>> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both
>>> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are
>>> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go
>> out
>>> there to find them.
>>>
>>> - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t
>>> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good candidates.
>>>
>>> - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our
>> main
>>> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant
>> (or
>>> 2.x for that matter).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Roberto
>>>
>>>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How can people help?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David Blevins
>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez
>> <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <
>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
>>>>>
>>>>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be
>>> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some
>>> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a look
>>> into it as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Roberto
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
Ok, then I'll checkout your PR and build it locally

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


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:07 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> We already released a TomEE 8 M1 with MP 1.3 support.
>
> And in reality, MP 2.x is the one we should be targeting with TomEE 8,
> since we have CDI 2.0.
>
> > On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:49, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > JL, I like baby steps.
> > Maybe, keep MP 1.3, release a TomEE 8 RC-2, then upgrade the version to
> MP
> > 2.0.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:40 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Let's revive this discussion ...
> >>
> >> We are working on build stability (see other thread).
> >> I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API we
> >> pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as
> opposed
> >> to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a
> >> NoSuchMethodException.
> >>
> >> So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)?
> >> Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else?
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez
> <[hidden email]
> >>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Good question.
> >>>
> >>> I think the community could help with the following topics:
> >>>
> >>> - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the
> >>> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.
> >>>
> >>> - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might
> >> be
> >>> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out what
> >> is
> >>> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT
> >>> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both
> >>> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are
> >>> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to go
> >> out
> >>> there to find them.
> >>>
> >>> - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t
> >>> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good
> candidates.
> >>>
> >>> - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our
> >> main
> >>> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0 compliant
> >> (or
> >>> 2.x for that matter).
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Roberto
> >>>
> >>>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> How can people help?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> David Blevins
> >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez
> >> <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <
> >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To be
> >>> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some
> >>> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a
> look
> >>> into it as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Roberto
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
I have built and reviewed this PR. We should merge it. The master is broken
anyway because we need to update the rest-client api version.

Are we ok to merge it and continue the work on master?

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


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:25 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Ok, then I'll checkout your PR and build it locally
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:07 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> We already released a TomEE 8 M1 with MP 1.3 support.
>>
>> And in reality, MP 2.x is the one we should be targeting with TomEE 8,
>> since we have CDI 2.0.
>>
>> > On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:49, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > JL, I like baby steps.
>> > Maybe, keep MP 1.3, release a TomEE 8 RC-2, then upgrade the version to
>> MP
>> > 2.0.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:40 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's revive this discussion ...
>> >>
>> >> We are working on build stability (see other thread).
>> >> I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API
>> we
>> >> pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as
>> opposed
>> >> to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a
>> >> NoSuchMethodException.
>> >>
>> >> So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)?
>> >> Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else?
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez
>> <[hidden email]
>> >>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Good question.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think the community could help with the following topics:
>> >>>
>> >>> - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the
>> >>> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might
>> >> be
>> >>> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out
>> what
>> >> is
>> >>> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT
>> >>> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both
>> >>> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are
>> >>> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to
>> go
>> >> out
>> >>> there to find them.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t
>> >>> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good
>> candidates.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our
>> >> main
>> >>> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0
>> compliant
>> >> (or
>> >>> 2.x for that matter).
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Roberto
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How can people help?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> David Blevins
>> >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez
>> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi folks,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <
>> >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To
>> be
>> >>> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some
>> >>> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a
>> look
>> >>> into it as well.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> Roberto
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Roberto Cortez
I may be biased to say yes :)

> On 7 Dec 2018, at 16:38, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have built and reviewed this PR. We should merge it. The master is broken
> anyway because we need to update the rest-client api version.
>
> Are we ok to merge it and continue the work on master?
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:25 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, then I'll checkout your PR and build it locally
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:07 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We already released a TomEE 8 M1 with MP 1.3 support.
>>>
>>> And in reality, MP 2.x is the one we should be targeting with TomEE 8,
>>> since we have CDI 2.0.
>>>
>>>> On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:49, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> JL, I like baby steps.
>>>> Maybe, keep MP 1.3, release a TomEE 8 RC-2, then upgrade the version to
>>> MP
>>>> 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:40 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's revive this discussion ...
>>>>>
>>>>> We are working on build stability (see other thread).
>>>>> I was digging into an issue where there is a mismatch between the API
>>> we
>>>>> pick in TomEE 8.x (master) which is for the moment MP 1.3 compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately we have upgraded CXF which is now rest-client 1.1 as
>>> opposed
>>>>> to 1.0 before. As a result, the TCK fails because of a
>>>>> NoSuchMethodException.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what do we target in terms of TomEE 8.x (master)?
>>>>> Do we stay MP 1.3 or MP 2.0 or else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM Roberto Cortez
>>> <[hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the community could help with the following topics:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Test the new MP dependencies in your projects. You can build the
>>>>>> project with PR (until is not merged) and try it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Contribute with additional tests outside the scope of the TCK. Might
>>>>> be
>>>>>> tricky, since you need to read both the TCK and Spec to figure out
>>> what
>>>>> is
>>>>>> missing. For instance, JWT spec mentions that "MicroProfile JWT
>>>>>> implementations are required to throw a `DeploymentException` if both
>>>>>> `mp.jwt.verify.publickey` and `mp.jwt.verify.publickey.location` are
>>>>>> supplied.” I believe the TCK doesn’t test this scenario. You need to
>>> go
>>>>> out
>>>>>> there to find them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Contribute with samples showing a particular feature of MP. We don’t
>>>>>> have samples around OpenAPI or OpenTracing, so these are good
>>> candidates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Help on Fault Tolerance implementation for 1.1. This should be our
>>>>> main
>>>>>> concern. Until this is done, we cannot rely say we are MP 2.0
>>> compliant
>>>>> (or
>>>>>> 2.x for that matter).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Roberto
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 21:52, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can people help?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> David Blevins
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Roberto Cortez
>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’ve done some work on update our implementations for MP 2.0:
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212 <
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/212>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With our latest implementation of JWT 1.1, we are almost there. To
>>> be
>>>>>> compliant, we are only missing Fault Tolerance 1.1. There are some
>>>>>> discussions about that on the Geronimo list. You may want to have a
>>> look
>>>>>> into it as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Roberto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

David Blevins-2
In reply to this post by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
> On Dec 7, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have built and reviewed this PR. We should merge it. The master is broken
> anyway because we need to update the rest-client api version.
>
> Are we ok to merge it and continue the work on master?

You know my philosophy:

 - if it's a step forward or sideways and no steps backwards, it's good

More people will be able to help if it's in master.


-David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
Agreed.
Merged. Let's hack ahead now
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:37 PM David Blevins <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > On Dec 7, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I have built and reviewed this PR. We should merge it. The master is
> broken
> > anyway because we need to update the rest-client api version.
> >
> > Are we ok to merge it and continue the work on master?
>
> You know my philosophy:
>
>  - if it's a step forward or sideways and no steps backwards, it's good
>
> More people will be able to help if it's in master.
>
>
> -David
>
>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Roberto Cortez
Now we just need to merge the JWT 1.1 work. There are couple of conflicts now, since MP 2.0 work and JWT 1.1 were done on separate branches. These should be easy to fix.

> On 7 Dec 2018, at 17:38, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Agreed.
> Merged. Let's hack ahead now
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:37 PM David Blevins <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have built and reviewed this PR. We should merge it. The master is
>> broken
>>> anyway because we need to update the rest-client api version.
>>>
>>> Are we ok to merge it and continue the work on master?
>>
>> You know my philosophy:
>>
>> - if it's a step forward or sideways and no steps backwards, it's good
>>
>> More people will be able to help if it's in master.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MicroProfile 2.0

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
Should be in.
See thread with classcastexception. Not sure why. I need to discuss with
Jon so I can investigate tomorrow.
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:54 PM Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Now we just need to merge the JWT 1.1 work. There are couple of conflicts
> now, since MP 2.0 work and JWT 1.1 were done on separate branches. These
> should be easy to fix.
>
> > On 7 Dec 2018, at 17:38, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed.
> > Merged. Let's hack ahead now
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:37 PM David Blevins <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I have built and reviewed this PR. We should merge it. The master is
> >> broken
> >>> anyway because we need to update the rest-client api version.
> >>>
> >>> Are we ok to merge it and continue the work on master?
> >>
> >> You know my philosophy:
> >>
> >> - if it's a step forward or sideways and no steps backwards, it's good
> >>
> >> More people will be able to help if it's in master.
> >>
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
>
>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com