Jakarta Authorization 2.1 Plan Review

[arjantijms]

Signed-off-by: arjantijms arjan.tijms@gmail.com

Plan Review PR template

When creating a specification project plan review, create PRs with the content defined as follows.

Include the following in the PR:

• A directory in the form wombat/x.y where x.y is the release major.minor version.
• An index page wombat/x.y/_index.md following template
• Title should be on the form "Jakarta Wombat X.Y (under development)"
• Includes a plan for the release. Usually, a couple of statements is enough. Otherwise, a link to a document describing the release.
• N/A - Includes a detailed description of any backward incompatibility (Mark with N/A and check if none)
• N/A - Declares optional features if there are any (Mark with N/A and check if none)
• Includes minimum Java SE version
• N/A - Describe any updates or required changes including splitting out the TCK (Mark with N/A and check if not planned)
• Link to updated release record
  https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jacc/releases/2.1

[netlify]

Deploy Preview for jakartaee-specifications ready!

Built with commit 0d56c84

https://deploy-preview-361--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app

[kwsutter]

@arjantijms One basic question... Why is this a major version update (ie. Authorization 3.0) vs a minor version update (ie. Authorization 2.1)? I read through your index.md file and the release record and I'm missing the reasoning for a major version update.

[arjantijms]

@kwsutter I didn't give this too much thought. The plan is to update the API with generics, adding say <String> at the appropriate places. Is that enough for a major version update, or could a minor update do?

[edbratt]

If API's are removed (even if they'd been previously deprecated), we'd want to declare a major version update. If the changes only add APIs, a minor update is probably fine. Generally, I'd suggest, qualitatively, if the changes contemplated are going to cause compatibility issues with legacy applications, it should be a major update just to alert users.

[kwsutter]

If API's are removed (even if they'd been previously deprecated), we'd want to declare a major version update. If the changes only add APIs, a minor update is probably fine. Generally, I'd suggest, qualitatively, if the changes contemplated are going to cause compatibility issues with legacy applications, it should be a major update just to alert users.

Agree. This is why I am challenging all of the major spec version updates... I just want to make sure that we're giving these major version updates proper thought. If adding generics is the main item for this plan review, then I would think a 2.x update would be sufficient.

[kwsutter]

@arjantijms Have you decided what direction you plan to take with the new version of Authorization? Based on the input thus far, I would recommend a 2.1 update instead of a 3.0 update. If we can decide on this, then I think we're ready for ballot. Thanks!

[kwsutter]

Just looking for a response about which direction you plan to pursue regarding a 2.1 vs 3.0 release. Thanks!

[kwsutter]

Changing this review to "Request Changes" just to show that it's being actively reviewed...

[arjantijms]

@kwsutter I'm fine with moving it to 2.1. At this point we may not have super breaking changes in mind.

[kwsutter]

@kwsutter I'm fine with moving it to 2.1. At this point we may not have super breaking changes in mind.

@arjantijms If you wish to move this to a 2.1 Plan Review, then this PR needs updating before we can take it to ballot. Thanks!

[arjantijms]

@kwsutter Good point ;) I think I've updated everything to say 2.1 now ;)

[kwsutter]

@arjantijms Looking good. I did notice that the 2.1 Release Record (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jacc/releases/2.1) still has a reference to a "3.0 release review". Can you clean that up? I'll start the ballot later today. Thanks!

[arjantijms]

@arjantijms Looking good. I did notice that the 2.1 Release Record (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jacc/releases/2.1) still has a reference to a "3.0 release review". Can you clean that up? I'll start the ballot later today. Thanks!

Ah, thanks for spotting that. I changed it right away. It says 2.1 now.

[kwsutter]

Looks good now. Thanks, @arjantijms!

[kwsutter]

@arjantijms Looking good. I did notice that the 2.1 Release Record (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jacc/releases/2.1) still has a reference to a "3.0 release review". Can you clean that up? I'll start the ballot later today. Thanks!

Ah, thanks for spotting that. I changed it right away. It says 2.1 now.

I also just noticed that the first comment (Description) in this PR still referenced the 3.0 release record. I updated that for you so that we didn't have to put off the ballot for another day... :-) Hope that was okay. Thanks!

[arjantijms]

Perfect, thanks!