Hi,
My personal viewpoint when reading all this skews towards what the users of each of the respective communities would expect.
If I look at the question of JWT in Jakarta Security or coming from MicroProfile I do not care and I suspect neither do our users.
If I am a Web Profile or EE Platform user, I expect it to be available as part of the offering as with the other currently available security flows / implementations.
If I am a MicroProfile user, I expect it to work when I include the MicroProfile JWT dependency / implementation as part of my project.
Just an observation, but I hope we do not lose sight of this!
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
From: jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of John Clingan
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:07 AM
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Moving MicroProfile JWT to Jakarta Security?
Getting back from PTO ...
Sorry, the financial argument doesn't make sense to me. Most companies/groups that are part of the MicroProfile WorkingGroup are also part of the Jakarta EE one. So today, they paid twice.
The Jakarta EE price was reduced to compensate for MicroProfile. Red Hat reduced its membership level in Jakarta because we have good hearing, I guess.
One WorkingGroup makes much more sense from that point of view and also from the developer that doesn't understand why Jakarta and MicroProfile don't merge (and provide a single coherent technical solution for their challenges) since the reason MicroProfile
was founded is no longer valid.
The reason is still valid, if not needed even more. There is a clear contrast in how specs are developed in MicroProfile vs Jakarta.
+1
I’m inserting this as a general point in this discussion, which is related to joining the MP JWT call.
There are non-technical reasons MicroProfile exists. MicroProfile is a flatter working group with fewer processes, somewhat different values (like backwards compatibility differences), releases more often, and is $250,000 USD cheaper *annually* (for
large organizations) than joining Jakarta EE Working Group as a strategic member. Whenever talk of moving a specification to Jakarta, I feel the need to remind folks of the non-technical differences between Jakarta and MicroProfile.
For these reasons, I am against moving *any* specifications out of MicroProfile to Jakarta, although I am open to the idea of moving Jakarta specifications to MicroProfile. The exception is concurrency, which was always intended to move
to Jakarta.
MP JWT does define bindings for EJB, Servlets, JACC, JASPIC, etc.
True, although essentially spelling out everything is unnecessary if one just says that MP JWT in a Jakarta EE environment is/exposes itself as an Jakarta Security Authentication Mechanism. All those other things then follow from that.
Specifically this authentication mechanism bit is missing there. I do see identity store being mentioned, and perhaps it comes from the confusion that many people have between the concept of an authentication mechanism (FORM, BASIC, etc) and an identity store
(DB, LDAP, FILE, etc).
I'd be on board for making these kinds of changes and improvements in MP JWT. The next version planned is 3.0, so we can even make breaking changes if we needed to accommodate. The next MP JWT call is Thursday, November 17th at 8:00am
Pacific. Are you open to attending at least once and discussing? Here's the call information:
# Procedural
In CN4J we did agree to some technical principles. One of them is that duplication should be avoided.
That is basically a good thing. The problem here is a little that MP JWT in a sense "hi-jacked" the JWT authentication mechanism from underneath Jakarta Security. Of course it's not that black and white in practice, and there were many
valid arguments for MP to introduce JWT in the way it did. But the matter of fact remains that Jakarta Security planned for a number of authentication mechanisms that went beyond the ones provided by servlet, such as Open ID Connect (OAuth) and JWT.
These didn't make it into 1.0, and because of the move to Eclipse the new features effort was stalled for years. In that timeframe JWT was introduced in MP. Currently Jakarta EE is open for new features again, but it finds some features
are now "controversial" only because MP implemented them in the meantime. Again, there was no malintent (I was even part of the original MP JWT team then), but it's an unfortunate situation.
I do understand how things can feel that way from an emotional perspective. My emotional perspective is that we're fortunate to have this conversation at all, because when MicroProfile and MP JWT were created Java EE was dead with no plans
to continue. I'm thankful and proud of MicroProfile for its impact on the decision to open source Java EE. I'm happy that both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile now live at the Eclipse Foundation and are implemented side-by-side in most the major implementations.
Sure, we don't want duplication between specs, but we also don't want duplication between say two specs in Jakarta EE. Compared to the challenges we've faced over the last 6 or 7 years, this feels very manageable.
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
|
