Was there a reason to abandon the "jakarta.security" prefix for one, but keep it for the other?
Jakarta Authorization HAD to move to a new group id since there was a version mismatch between the spec and the last released jar. So this gave us the opportunity to come up with a fitting (better) group id.
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".
It's a confusing id indeed. I understand where they were coming from at the time, with "message" relating to (mainly) SOAP's distinction between Message Level Security (MLS) and Transport Level Security (TLS). Since at the time SOAP was the big hype (kinda like MicroServices are today), many things were named after SOAP concepts. At least, that's how I understood it.
I'd love to see just jakarta.authentication as group id.
If the PMC agrees and other stakeholders agree, it would be good to have this changed for Jakarta EE 9.
Kind regards,
Arjan
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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
