Re: TomeEE 8.0.5 and microprofile JWT RBAC 1.1

[David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>]

Hello Francois,

TomEE 8 does support MicroProfile JWT 1.1.  As for the overall level of support, MicroProfile 2.1 would be the most accurate version to cite, though the answer is really it's a bit mixed.

Essentially MicroProfile 2.1 is the last MicroProfile version that included Fault Tolerance 1.x.  MicroProfile 2.2 switched to FaultTolerance 2.0 which is not supported.  Some of the specs are more current than the versions that were included in MicroProfile 2.1, so parts of our MicroProfile support is more current.

The technique of looking at the related API jar as you did is the right one to use.

Most people are working on Jakarta EE 8 compliance with a secondary focus on Jakarta EE 9 compliance as they are the same TCK just with different namespaces.  I suspect when that is done people will move onto getting MicroProfile compliance more current.

That isn't to say help getting MicroProfile support more current right now wouldn't be extremely welcome -- it definitely would -- however, no one has volunteered yet so it sits in the "someday" pile.

Hope that helps.


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

> On Dec 18, 2020, at 2:18 AM, COURTAULT Francois <fr...@thalesgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Could anyone answer to the questions below ?
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Best Regards.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: COURTAULT Francois [mailto:francois.courtault@thalesgroup.com] 
> Sent: vendredi 11 décembre 2020 18:23
> To: users@tomee.apache.org
> Subject: TomeEE 8.0.5 and microprofile JWT RBAC 1.1
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Is TomEE 8.0.5 certified for micro-profile JWT 1.1 ?
> Looking at the lib embedded, microprofile-jwt-auth-api-1.1.1.jar, I would say yes, but I prefer to check.
> 
> BTW, it's a recurrent question I have: what is the micro-profile version on which TomEE 8.0.5 is certified ?
> The lastest version is 3.3.
> 
> Best Regards.
> 
> 
> 

Re: TomeEE 8.0.5 and microprofile JWT RBAC 1.1

[David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>]

> On Jan 13, 2021, at 5:31 AM, COURTAULT Francois <fr...@thalesgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello David,
> 
> Just my point of view that I want to share with you.
> Of course not everyone is using µServices architecture but there is some traction on that.
> 
> For example, we have migrated 2 of our solutions from monolith to µServices architecture and we are using for the moment TomEE 8.0.5.
> 
> So , for our organization, MP specifications are quite important. The consequence is that we are waiting for a close following of the specifications as they evolved. David, as you said, TomEE 8.0.5 is in between 2.1/2.2 MP specifications. But it's too old ! :-(
> The version 4.0.1 has just been released, between 2.2 and 4.0.1, 5 MP specifications releases have been published.
> 
> I am afraid that if you don't put some priority on MP, most of the people, wanting to build a Java µService architecture, will use Quarkus or Helidon for such thing instead of using TomEE !    For example, following MP specifications as much as possible, is more important than having a full compliancy with Jakarta EE 8 or 9. Ask the question to the community and let's see the answers ? 
> 
> Again I just want to share my feelings about the TomEE roadmap.

I understand and share you frustration.  I'll add that once a project like this one is so far behind, it actually makes it harder to recover as fewer people come here and that leads to even fewer resources.  Your disadvantages pile up and compound on each other and it can make things feel quite hopeless.  It takes a lot of determination to keep going against such terrible odds.  It also takes a dalai lama level of zen to not direct that frustration at those who offer suggestions on how you can do better with what little you have and go silent when the topic comes up on how they can do better and contribute the little they have.

I appreciate you mean well and truly do want the project to be stronger.

TomEE was built by people in their spare time (including me) and we seemed to hover around 1.5 FTEs in aggregate across a small handful of people.  We're still at that level of resources.  We could have a large community discussion on how those people spend their time, but I don't think more opinions will help them and will likely discourage them.

Rather thank asking the community what they want most, I'd be more interested in knowing how we can help them contribute what they want.

If you have any suggestions I'm very willing to hear them.


-David

RE: TomeEE 8.0.5 and microprofile JWT RBAC 1.1

[COURTAULT Francois <fr...@thalesgroup.com>]

Hello David,

Just my point of view that I want to share with you.
Of course not everyone is using µServices architecture but there is some traction on that.

For example, we have migrated 2 of our solutions from monolith to µServices architecture and we are using for the moment TomEE 8.0.5.

So , for our organization, MP specifications are quite important. The consequence is that we are waiting for a close following of the specifications as they evolved. David, as you said, TomEE 8.0.5 is in between 2.1/2.2 MP specifications. But it's too old ! :-(
The version 4.0.1 has just been released, between 2.2 and 4.0.1, 5 MP specifications releases have been published.

I am afraid that if you don't put some priority on MP, most of the people, wanting to build a Java µService architecture, will use Quarkus or Helidon for such thing instead of using TomEE !    For example, following MP specifications as much as possible, is more important than having a full compliancy with Jakarta EE 8 or 9. Ask the question to the community and let's see the answers ? 

Again I just want to share my feelings about the TomEE roadmap.

Best Regards.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Blevins [mailto:david.blevins@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 12 janvier 2021 23:04
To: users@tomee.apache.org
Subject: Re: TomeEE 8.0.5 and microprofile JWT RBAC 1.1

Hello Francois,

TomEE 8 does support MicroProfile JWT 1.1.  As for the overall level of support, MicroProfile 2.1 would be the most accurate version to cite, though the answer is really it's a bit mixed.

Essentially MicroProfile 2.1 is the last MicroProfile version that included Fault Tolerance 1.x.  MicroProfile 2.2 switched to FaultTolerance 2.0 which is not supported.  Some of the specs are more current than the versions that were included in MicroProfile 2.1, so parts of our MicroProfile support is more current.

The technique of looking at the related API jar as you did is the right one to use.

Most people are working on Jakarta EE 8 compliance with a secondary focus on Jakarta EE 9 compliance as they are the same TCK just with different namespaces.  I suspect when that is done people will move onto getting MicroProfile compliance more current.

That isn't to say help getting MicroProfile support more current right now wouldn't be extremely welcome -- it definitely would -- however, no one has volunteered yet so it sits in the "someday" pile.

Hope that helps.


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

> On Dec 18, 2020, at 2:18 AM, COURTAULT Francois <fr...@thalesgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Could anyone answer to the questions below ?
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Best Regards.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: COURTAULT Francois [mailto:francois.courtault@thalesgroup.com] 
> Sent: vendredi 11 décembre 2020 18:23
> To: users@tomee.apache.org
> Subject: TomeEE 8.0.5 and microprofile JWT RBAC 1.1
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Is TomEE 8.0.5 certified for micro-profile JWT 1.1 ?
> Looking at the lib embedded, microprofile-jwt-auth-api-1.1.1.jar, I would say yes, but I prefer to check.
> 
> BTW, it's a recurrent question I have: what is the micro-profile version on which TomEE 8.0.5 is certified ?
> The lastest version is 3.3.
> 
> Best Regards.
> 
> 
>