Hey Chip, Sure, happy to help out. I can probably get something done this weekend. Having this as a generic class could be a benefit for future integrations as well.
I'll dive in to the code and keep track of this thread to see if I can help out. Cheers, Hugo Sent from my iPhone On 3 aug. 2012, at 19:21, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > Hugo, > > Just looked at your implementation. It does appear to do the same > thing, which is fantastic. Would you happen to have any availability > to attempt to replace the F5 code with something similar to your > implementation? Perhaps it should be a utility class that can be > shared between the two features? > > Kishan has CS-15732 currently assigned to him (the bug for tracking > this), but I haven't heard anything about progress. > > Kishan - if you've actually started already, can you please let the list know? > > -chip > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Hugo Trippaers > <htrippa...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
