| Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Moving MicroProfile JWT to Jakarta Security? |
What you are referencing was never ratified or adopted by the steering committees, it was discussed and documents created.
What can be referred to are the approved Jakarta EE and MicroProfile program plans where general objectives for each working group regarding their support of one another is covered.
Other than that, each has their own Specification Committee (for MicroProfile the Steering Committee is also the Specification Committee) which ballots based on the considerations of that working group. As we have seen.
Hey All,
A couple notes on various things mentioned in this thread.
# Technical
MP JWT does define bindings for EJB, Servlets, JACC, JASPIC, etc.
- https://download.eclipse.org/microprofile/microprofile-jwt-auth-2.0/microprofile-jwt-auth-spec-2.0.html#_recommendations_for_optional_container_integration
These have been there since MP JWT 1.0. If we wanted to expand that and bolster the TCK tests in MP JWT, this is not a problem. There are no technical limitations that would prevent us from defining in MP JWT how MP JWT ties into Jakarta Security, Jakarta Servlets or any Jakarta spec.
# Procedural
In CN4J we did agree to some technical principles. One of them is that duplication should be avoided.
- https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1i7hBzjXtApAUQDopPopLNG0yuwLXBLiSAFKr1_jhFlQ/edit?pli=1#slide=id.ge89d7772e8_0_9
Copying MP JWT would violate the principles we agreed on. The process for getting agreement between the two groups for a move is basically:
- Create a proposal and get a member of each WG to sponsor (endorse) it
- Once sponsored, both WGs independently vote to approve it
- If both WGs agree, it can move forward
Hope this helps.
-David
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev