Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[jakartaee-platform-dev] [DISCUSS] Define final name for MP JWT bridge component spec until 25th of July

Hello community,

we like to discuss a potential final name for the new standalone spec that is the outcome of the integration efforts between MP JWT and Jakarta Security.

Please comment on this GitHub issue:

For convenience the issue introduction text here:

As discussed in the last MicroProfile JWT and Jakarta Security Interlock Call on 6th of July, I think we need to define a final name for the new standalone spec, called jwt-bridge currently.

The current working name has some limitations, as it not defining the component specs scope clearly and inconsistencies just starting:

- Proposal name: jwt-bridge
- README.adoc headline: MicroProfile JWT Integration
- Spec document file name: microprofile-jwt-integration-spec.asciidoc
- Spec document headline: Eclipse MicroProfile Interoperable JWT RBAC

To prevent naming inconsistencies right from the beginning (as in MP JWT *) and that spec names a part of the Creation Review EF IP check, this need to be solved before the CR. As changing names afterwards is confusing and a breaking change in almost all cases, we need to prevent it where possible.

So the goal is to agree on a short, self-explaining final name for this new component spec, that also reflects it's scope! When found, we can create a PR to update existing names and then start the CR.

Disclaimer: Solving naming issues in the current MP JWT * spec is out of scope of this issue - this will be discussed here.

During the meeting we collected a list of potential names:

- Jan: MP JWT Web Profile
- Jan: MP JWT Web
- Werner: MP JWT Jakarta Bridge
- John, Majid: MP JWT Bridge
- Michael, Jan: MP JWT Security
- Majid: MP JWT Security Core

There was also discussion about being clearer in the scope by adding Jakarta (MP JWT Jakarta Security or MP JWT Jakarta Web) and allowed use of Jakarta inside a MP spec on the other hand.

Paul Buck is offering helping out the last from the EF side in the last MP Community Call on 11th of July.

We decided to get additional community input, discuss the name on the next interlock call on the 20th of July and finalize the name until the 25th of July to not delay the Creation Review.

I hope we can agree on a name in consensus, but the wider community discussion is open on this now!

As multiple different communities involved here, please try to add comments on this GitHub issue instead of creating a parallel thread on a (single) mailing list - not everybody has access configured to all lists. However, if email is preferred, then use the cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list please.

Back to the top