Very cool. Thanks Hugo! - chip
Sent from my iPhone. On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Hugo Trippaers <htrippa...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
