I have not been able to get a response from Jacob Gilley through a few channels, so we should move forward replacing the XTrustProvider class. It's not too big of a deal and shouldn't take long, but there are really not that many ways to do it. The task is pretty much to accept any SSL certificates, regardless if they are self-signed or from a root cert. I can't see that it will require any special refactoring of the callers either.
For further information of the source: https://devcentral.f5.com/Community/GroupDetails/tabid/1082223/asg/51/aft/2279/showtab/groupforums/Default.aspx -Arve -----Original Message----- From: Chip Childers Sent: 1. august 2012 03:25 Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code? Fantastic Arve! Thanks for pitching in. -chip On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Arve Paalsrud <arve.paals...@bayonette.no> wrote: > This code snippet is written by Jacob Gilley in a forum thread over at F5 Dev > Central in 2005, and not F5 Network themselves. F5's version and the original > code are identical - they've only added the copyright statements and optional > GPL, so I've reached out to Jacob and asked if he's willing to release it > under Apache. > > Waiting for his reply. > > -Arve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Cole [mailto:fernc...@gmail.com] > Sent: 1. august 2012 02:57 > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code? > > +1 (non-binding and certainly not official) for taking the opportunity > +to > rewrite code as a chance to make things better, vs least efforts. > > Code written more than several months prior can often be written better > anyway (one hopes their skills age well :P). Particularly, unit tests are a > welcome great improvement whenever there's code to be "rewritten". I'd go so > far as to say code without unit tests are often time bombs that should be > rewritten anyway. > > -A > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 01/08/2012, at 6:52 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Does anyone know the official ASF stance on what it means to >> > "re-write" a section of code? >> >> There's no general answer to this - each case needs to be considered >> separately. This was the closest I could find in the archives: >> http://s.apache.org/rewriting-code >> >> > >> > Specifically, I was looking at the F5 code [1] that was found >> > during license header changes (and is considered a release blocker bug >> > [2]). >> > The code is actually quite trivial in nature, and I'm wondering >> > what it would take to correctly write a replacement class file. My >> > assumption is that simply re-naming variables wouldn't work (and >> > even if that was enough, there are only a handful of them in the file). >> >> I agree, renaming variables is definitely not right. >> >> In this case it is trivial (I googled and found a half-dozen examples >> doing the same thing), so I'd say remove it and have someone >> reimplement it. It may be better in these cases if they haven't seen >> the original code, but not strictly necessary. It is probably a good >> opportunity to refactor calling code too, if needed. >> >> In other cases, an option available is to ask the copyright holder if >> they'd consider contributing/granting a license to a piece of code to >> include here. >> >> Ultimately, we want to make sure we do the right thing by the authors >> and that code here is intentionally contributed. >> >> HTH, >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> br...@apache.org >> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ >> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter >> http://twitter.com/brettporter >> >> >> >> >> >> >
