search

microprofile / microprofile-wg

Repo to host official Working Group documents under revision control
Apache License 2.0
12 stars 12 forks source link

Add plan review for MP 6.0 #177

Closed Emily-Jiang closed 1 year ago

Emily-Jiang commented 1 year ago

@jclingan you fixed my first comment. The following is still not rendered well. see below:

image

You can either accept my suggestions as above or do another commit to fix all of the lines.

JanWesterkamp-iJUG commented 1 year ago

@Emily-Jiang, @jclingan (and @ederks85), I found a few issues:

We will have a microprofile-parent major update, that will include a major release migration for Jakarta EE (9.1 to 10) including the CDI Lite 4 major release (and other things too). We should not use patch or service releases to reflect this! Besides issues with semver, if we woud do it like that and we need to fix one of the existing MP component specs, we would have to add another digit to the version, i.e. MP Config 3.0.1.1 - I think this is not a good idea at all...

Additionally, some MP component specs are not named correctly:

Sometimes this is a difficult task, as component specs themself do not use consistent naming (i.e. microprofile-jwt-auth issue 303 or MP OpenAPI has an inconsistent naming regarding the GitHub repository name with eclipse/microprofile-open-api and on the website too). If we do not fix these issues, we keep the technical debt and have to pay the interest rate again and again...

Being short in the naming can be a good strategy to prevent issues like this, i.e. MicroProfile Telemetry covers MicroProfile Telemetry Tracing (and that will be included) ;-)

To be exact, it might be useful in the future to use the official full name of the component spec to prevent confusion i.e. when there is a component spec of the same name in Jakarta like Config - using MicroProfile Config and Jakarta Config would help to separate them.

Some of this findings are old or repeated ones (from my MP 5.0 Release Review), that are not addessed yet. I think we should do that and in case this Plan Review passes (formally it looks like now), we can still do a new iteration to address my concerns without delaying the work on the release in general, I think.

As conclusion, I have to vote -1 now, but hoping to get this fixed soon! :-)

edbratt commented 1 year ago

Sorry for being a dunderhead, where is this page intended to display -- at microprofile.io, somewhere?

jclingan commented 1 year ago

@edbratt This will be displayed in the release record without the asciidoc formatting. It is unclear how it will be referred to from microprofile.io. We are still discussing individual spec pages. In the meantime, it is in asciidoc format here.

@JanWesterkamp-iJUG We should figure out the proper name. We've called it JWT Auth for a long time. However, the spec text says Interoperable JWT RBAC. You are correct that this needs to be addressed. I'll fix Open API -> OpenAPI