Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] JakartaSecurity

[Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

 

>Is there really a wildcard? We could try it out by just staging to jakarta.security.foo. A >staging can easily be removed again.

 

That’s what I got from the Spec Committee calls.

 

Kind Regards,

Werner

 

From: arjan tijms
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 21:06
To: Jakarta specification committee
Cc: jakartaee-platform developer discussions
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] JakartaSecurity Spec NamespaceMismatch

 

Hi,

 

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:02 PM Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx> wrote:

He was skeptical, if either Eclipse or Sonatype allows changing the GroupId, but IMO there is a wildcard for the groupId, so everyone who may deploy "jakarta.security.auth.message" should also be able to deploy "jakarta.security.authentication" or "jakarta.authentication".

 

My feeling says it would be allowed if asked. What we can't do however is just change it in the poms. Someone, somewhere has to authorise and effectuate this change for the CI user and/or at Sonatype.

 

Is there really a wildcard? We could try it out by just staging to jakarta.security.foo. A staging can easily be removed again.

 

Kind regards,

Arjan

 

 

 

 

Jakarta Security is the only one that seems consistent between groupId and package name.

 

Werner

 

From: Bill Shannon
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 20:15
To: Jakarta specification committee; Werner Keil; jakartaee-platform developer discussions
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Jakarta Security Spec NamespaceMismatch

 

I think you should start by getting agreement from the Committers to that project.

I personally don't have a problem with them changing names to be more consistent.

Werner Keil wrote on 2/17/20 10:42 AM:

Hi,

 

I recently noticed, that renaming some specs like JASPIC to another Jakarta name had a side-effect of a mismatch and inconsistency of the Maven GroupIds.

 

While Jakarta Autorization (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/authorization) ended up with:

<groupId>jakarta.authorization</groupId>

   <artifactId>jakarta.authorization-api</artifactId>

 

Its sibling Jakarta Authorization (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/authentication) sticks with a GroupId root already known by Jakarta Security:

<groupId>jakarta.security.auth.message</groupId>

<artifactId>jakarta.security.auth.message-api</artifactId>

 

Was there a reason to abandon the "jakarta.security" prefix for one, but keep it for the other?

 

Also IMO "jakarta.security.auth.message" is wrong on so many levels, to start with it confuses people with Jakarta Messaging because the word "message" and the acronym "auth" tells nothing whether it is "authorization" or "authentication".

 

Since they were both recently changed from the "javax" namespace, I doubt either of them are "given by God" now, so could we at least harmonize them, either with the "jakarta.security" prefix or without?

 

Thanks,

Werner

 

 

_______________________________________________

jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list

jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx

To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!N-IWgG0dsrTVLwP9Vt3-xcA7ppjYVfHgidl-cviQveaU1jppCkomKWPaL9c7o-U3Rg$ 

 

 

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee