JanWesterkamp-iJUG
commented
1 year ago Personally, I have not chosen my best option, as the exact scope for the spec is not fully clear to me.
It started with an integration on MP JWT and Jakarta Security, so naming it MP JWT [Jakarta] Security [Integration] sounds reasonable.
But the current MP JWT spec contains (optional) integration tests besides Jakarta Security with technologies like Jakarta EJB etc., that should be removed there and may be moved to this new spec - or may be parts of them only. Therefore something like MP JWT [Jakarta] Web [Profile] [Integration] could make sense to.
I will verify the current dependencies of the MP JWT TCK to check the current scope of the tests.
aeiras
Emily-Jiang
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:
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:
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@eclipse.org mailing list please.