Les Hazlewood

Yes, this is still planned for 1.0.0, but we need to finish JWE and JSON (non-compact) serialization first.

Same status as my last comment. 1.0 has been a long time coming, but we *are* actively working on it.

Yep, you're right - thanks for the issue. We have to do this for a similar set of other claims as well. Can you use the `JwtBuilder#addClaims` method to work...

@workmanw we want to be 100% compliant with the spec, and the spec allows for arrays, so we definitely want to support this and/or accept PRs for it. The reason...

Some thoughtful design needs to go into this and we just don't want to hold up 0.11 any longer - adding to a future release.

I don't understand the issue - this is standard Java method overloading, no? Can you please clarify the problem?

Ah, don't instantiate `DefaultHeader`. Use `Jwts.header()` ? Ordinarily you should not instantiate anything in the `impl` package directly.

Just following this up - yes, the API should be cleaned up to avoid this confusion. Thanks for reporting and confirming everyone. We'll track this for a future release, but...

Also note: currently the JJWT API uses method names of `setHeader` and `setHeaderParam` to mirror with that JWT RFC calls these concepts. An impedance mismatch here is that the spec...

Hi @skjolber ! Thanks very much for this - how much of a change in performance does using millis instead of Date make? I ask because most people have asked...