Heya, Just pitching in without context, but I have some code in the Nicira stuff that does that, provided the code uses httpclient in the back.
Cheers, Hugo Sent from my iPhone On 3 aug. 2012, at 13:02, "Arve Paalsrud" <arve.paals...@bayonette.no> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
