Hi, here is an attempt to describe the galleon layers we could see exposed in order to build custom configurations. The way layers are provisioned by galleon make the provisioned server to be much smaller (in term of XML config and num of provisioned modules) than the default installation/configurations. We are here covering standalone kind of configuration. Feedbacks would be really welcome. I took the approach to not have layers to depend on legacy security-realms, we want elytron to be the way to go, so depending on these first place would create a maintainability issue. This does create some complexity when defining default configs, default config have to associate realms with management and subsystems to produce the default standalone configs we know. This complexity is not exposed. Each layer is "runnable", you can provision it and run it. Only common.* and standalone.* scripts are provisioned. Doesn't mean that running it alone makes sense. Any combination of layers should be valid. A layer brings its own dependencies and its XML configuration. Each subsystem (even server) is in charge to advertise to galleon what are the additional modules it is injecting or loading that should be provisioned but are not referenced from extension module. All the subsystems involved in the following layers have been updated to express these dependencies. Because Full layers are far from being defined, we could expect some adjustment. For core: Layers not bound to subsystems - base-server: root resource, pubic interface and socket binding. All layers depend at least on it. - management: unsecured management interface, management sockets, http-interface - secure-management: depends on management, configures elytron sasl authentication factory for management http interface - tools: all modules and tools script files (cli, add-user,...) - patching: patching modules. Layers bound to subsystems - core-management - deployment-scanner - discovery - elytron (brings openssl artifacts, openssl can't be used if elytron openssl provider is not configured.). - io - jmx - jmx-remoting: depends on jmx and configure remoting-connector. Depend on management (requires jboss.remoting.endpoint.management service) - logging - remoting: depends on io - request-controller - security-manager Aggregation Layer This layer defines a server with elytron secured management and all layers one would expect when running a core-server - core-server: depends on secure-management (brings elytron), jmx-remoting (brings jmx), logging, core-management, request-controller, security-manager. For servlet Layers not bound to subsystems - picketbox: A layer to brings picketbox module (and optional deps of picketbox present in servlet FP). Picketbox could be combined with some core layers without requiring the legacy security subsystem to be present. Layers bound to subsystems - ee: depends on naming - legacy-security (security sub-system): depends on naming and picketbox. - naming - undertow: depends on io and picketbox (to bring optional deps of picketbox, we still have hard dep on picketbox from security-negociation). This is a base undertow server, no security, no https-listener, empty servlet container (no support for servlet, jsp deployments). NB: welcome-content is not part of the layer, it is bring by the default configs. legacy default-security-domain "other" is also not configured, that is done in the default config too. - undertow-load-balancer: depends on io and picketbox. Undertow configured to act as a load-balancer. Web server layer This layer defines a server containing all layers one would expect when running an unsecure web-server. legacy-security is not included. In addition, this layer evolves undertow to be a full servlet-container (jsp, servlet, web-socket) and http-invoker. - web-server: ee (brings naming), deployment-scanner, undertow (brings picketbox and io) A note on combining layers. In order to evolve a web-server to become fully manageable, one would combine core-server (the management features) with web-server (web support). Because core layers are accessible from servlet FP, one could pick and choose from servlet FP to assemble his server. For example, a basic manageable unsecured (but ready to be configured for security) undertow server: undertow+management+elytron For full: We have identified an initial set of layers that would be the building blocks to help define cloud oriented configurations. Layers bound to subsystem: These layers depend (at least) on web-server (from servlet) - cdi: brings in weld and bean-validation - jaxrs - jpa: brings in hibernate default providers. In addition brings-in transactions, jca and infinispan (hibernate infinispan-cache). - activemq-jms: naked subsystem, no server configured. In addition brings-in transactions and jca - microprofile: opentracing, config, healths and metrics (last 2 depend on management). Layers that are simple extension of existing layers (would not appear as new layers but would extend content of servlet/core ones). - ee: add optional dependencies injected by dup present in full FP. - undertow: add undertow.js package. - tools: vault, jdr, wstools, appclient Aggregation layer - cloud-profile: contains cdi,jaxrs,jpa,activemq-jms,microprofile . All optionally included, allowing for exclusion (eg: exclude activemq-jms). Open questions SSL undertow As you noticed we don't have a layer for an SSL undertow. elytron doesn't offer an out of the box generation of self-signed certificate. Only legacy security realms offer this. So the way to go would be to provision undertow+elytron+management+tools (management+tools to use CLI), create the keystore, do the elytron configuration, add an https-listener, set the ssl-context, remove all the management related stuff from CLI. Then exclude the management+tools layers to get a smaller foot-print (tools bring a lot). NB: we could imagine that the CLI configuration is done from a provisioned server that contains tools so no need to provision tools with undertow. I am wandering if we should create an elytron SSL context that points to a "REPLACE_WITH_THE_PATH_TO_YOUR_KEYSTORE" kind of configuration to simplify configuration steps? I don't really like this idea to generate config that points to invalid artifacts but would simplify the configuration steps. Picketbox layer Because we want at some point to get rid-off this dependency, I am wandering if we should really define a layer for it. Could be that any dependency on it would imply the use of legacy-security layer. Picketbox is implicit when legacy-security layer is provisioned. Full layers granularity For now, we have included some major features (transactions, jca, infinispan) without making them layers. The layers that are depending on them are for the only consumers. When we progress with new layers, this would be revisited. Thank-you for having reached the end. ;-) JF _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

Picketbox layer Because we want at some point to get rid-off this dependency, I am wandering if we should really define a layer for it. Could be that any dependency on it would imply the use of legacy-security layer. Picketbox is implicit when legacy-security layer is provisioned. The independent use is the management vault. Using that shouldn't require everything in the current p-b module though. And arguably you could say that use case means you need the vault tool and thus whatever layer has it. (You don't need the vault tool though, not on the server.)

Yes we can remove it entirely ;-) On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:13 PM Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com <mailto:cdewolf@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04-12-18 23:15, Brian Stansberry wrote: > > Picketbox layer > > Because we want at some point to get rid-off this dependency, > I am > wandering if we should really define a layer for it. Could be > that any > dependency on it would imply the use of legacy-security > layer. Picketbox > is implicit when legacy-security layer is provisioned. > > > The independent use is the management vault. Using that shouldn't > require everything in the current p-b module though. And arguably > you could say that use case means you need the vault tool and > thus whatever layer has it. (You don't need the vault tool > though, not on the server.) > Can we change the management vault somehow to not need PicketBox at all anymore? Carlo _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

Darran, elytron seems to have a dependency on picketbox for jacc support. Am I right? On 05/12/2018 12:04, Darran Lofthouse wrote: Yes we can remove it entirely ;-) On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:13 PM Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 04-12-18 23:15, Brian Stansberry wrote: > > Picketbox layer >> >> Because we want at some point to get rid-off this dependency, I am >> wandering if we should really define a layer for it. Could be that any >> dependency on it would imply the use of legacy-security layer. Picketbox >> is implicit when legacy-security layer is provisioned. >> > > The independent use is the management vault. Using that shouldn't require > everything in the current p-b module though. And arguably you could say > that use case means you need the vault tool and thus whatever layer has it. > (You don't need the vault tool though, not on the server.) > > Can we change the management vault somehow to not need PicketBox at all > anymore? > > Carlo > _______________________________________________ > wildfly-dev mailing list > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

The subsystem. So we could imagine that user would install both elytron and picketbox. On 05/12/2018 14:56, Darran Lofthouse wrote: Do you mean Elytron or the Elytron Subsystem? I believe yes the subsystem does have that dependency but it is only temporary until PicketBox is removed. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:51 PM Jean-Francois Denise <jdenise(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Darran, > > elytron seems to have a dependency on picketbox for jacc support. Am I > right? > > On 05/12/2018 12:04, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > > Yes we can remove it entirely ;-) > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:13 PM Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> On 04-12-18 23:15, Brian Stansberry wrote: >> >> Picketbox layer >>> >>> Because we want at some point to get rid-off this dependency, I am >>> wandering if we should really define a layer for it. Could be that any >>> dependency on it would imply the use of legacy-security layer. >>> Picketbox >>> is implicit when legacy-security layer is provisioned. >>> >> >> The independent use is the management vault. Using that shouldn't >> require everything in the current p-b module though. And arguably you could >> say that use case means you need the vault tool and thus whatever layer has >> it. (You don't need the vault tool though, not on the server.) >> >> Can we change the management vault somehow to not need PicketBox at all >> anymore? >> >> Carlo >> _______________________________________________ >> wildfly-dev mailing list >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev > > >

This sounds pretty reasonable. There are a lot of layers but the aggregation layers let people deal with things with a reasonable granularity. In the future in the tooling I don't know if there's a way to annotate layers somehow so some get some sort of prominence in the UI (a la what the WF CLI does with required attributes and tab completion.)  That's a very vague thought though, and something for the future. More inline... On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:54 AM Jean-Francois Denise <jdenise(a)redhat.com <mailto:jdenise@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, here is an attempt to describe the galleon layers we could see exposed in order to build custom configurations. The way layers are provisioned by galleon make the provisioned server to be much smaller (in term of XML config and num of provisioned modules) than the default installation/configurations. We are here covering standalone kind of configuration. Feedbacks would be really welcome. I took the approach to not have layers to depend on legacy security-realms, we want elytron to be the way to go, so depending on these first place would create a maintainability issue. This does create some complexity when defining default configs, default config have to associate realms with management and subsystems to produce the default standalone configs we know. This complexity is not exposed. Each layer is "runnable", you can provision it and run it. Only common.* and standalone.* scripts are provisioned. Doesn't mean that running it alone makes sense. Any combination of layers should be valid. A layer brings its own dependencies and its XML configuration. Each subsystem (even server) is in charge to advertise to galleon what are the additional modules it is injecting or loading that should be provisioned but are not referenced from extension module. All the subsystems involved in the following layers have been updated to express these dependencies. Because Full layers are far from being defined, we could expect some adjustment. For core: Layers not bound to subsystems - base-server: root resource, pubic interface and socket binding. All layers depend at least on it. - management: unsecured management interface, management sockets, http-interface - secure-management: depends on management, configures elytron sasl authentication factory for management http interface - tools: all modules and tools script files (cli, add-user,...) - patching: patching modules. AFAIK legacy patching won't work with a custom Galleon provisioned server. Is this layer just here as necessary bit to let us produce our standard dists, or do you see it being used for custom servers?

Layers bound to subsystems - core-management - deployment-scanner - discovery - elytron (brings openssl artifacts, openssl can't be used if elytron openssl provider is not configured.). - io - jmx - jmx-remoting: depends on jmx and configure remoting-connector. Depend on management (requires jboss.remoting.endpoint.management service) - logging - remoting: depends on io - request-controller - security-manager Aggregation Layer This layer defines a server with elytron secured management and all layers one would expect when running a core-server - core-server: depends on secure-management (brings elytron), jmx-remoting (brings jmx), logging, core-management, request-controller, security-manager. For servlet Layers not bound to subsystems - picketbox: A layer to brings picketbox module (and optional deps of picketbox present in servlet FP). Picketbox could be combined with some core layers without requiring the legacy security subsystem to be present. Layers bound to subsystems - ee: depends on naming - legacy-security (security sub-system): depends on naming and picketbox. - naming - undertow: depends on io and picketbox (to bring optional deps of picketbox, we still have hard dep on picketbox from security-negociation). This is a base undertow server, no security, no https-listener, empty servlet container (no support for servlet, jsp deployments). NB: welcome-content is not part of the layer, it is bring by the default configs. legacy default-security-domain "other" is also not configured, that is done in the default config too. - undertow-load-balancer: depends on io and picketbox. Undertow configured to act as a load-balancer. Web server layer This layer defines a server containing all layers one would expect when running an unsecure web-server. legacy-security is not included. In addition, this layer evolves undertow to be a full servlet-container (jsp, servlet, web-socket) and http-invoker. - web-server: ee (brings naming), deployment-scanner, undertow (brings picketbox and io) A note on combining layers. In order to evolve a web-server to become fully manageable, one would combine core-server (the management features) with web-server (web support). Because core layers are accessible from servlet FP, one could pick and choose from servlet FP to assemble his server. For example, a basic manageable unsecured (but ready to be configured for security) undertow server: undertow+management+elytron What, roughly, is the disk footprint of an installation like this? I mean with known tweaks and optimizations you have in your WIP.

What, roughly do the Galleon CLI commands look like to provision a server with this, plus, say core tools and jaxrs from the full feature pack?

For full: We have identified an initial set of layers that would be the building blocks to help define cloud oriented configurations. Layers bound to subsystem: These layers depend (at least) on web-server (from servlet) - cdi: brings in weld and bean-validation - jaxrs - jpa: brings in hibernate default providers. In addition brings-in transactions, jca and infinispan (hibernate infinispan-cache). Does that bring in JGroups? Or is this a local-only cache?

- activemq-jms: naked subsystem, no server configured. In addition brings-in transactions and jca - microprofile: opentracing, config, healths and metrics (last 2 depend on management). Layers that are simple extension of existing layers (would not appear as new layers but would extend content of servlet/core ones). - ee: add optional dependencies injected by dup present in full FP. - undertow: add undertow.js package. I'm curious why this is only in full. Not really a question for you as I assume you put it in full because that's where it is now.

- tools: vault, jdr, wstools, appclient This might need some tweaking. AIUI appclient would bring in nearly the entire current installation, so perhaps should be independent. I don't know about wstools.

Aggregation layer - cloud-profile: contains cdi,jaxrs,jpa,activemq-jms,microprofile . All optionally included, allowing for exclusion (eg: exclude activemq-jms). What the rough footprint of this, with core tools added?

Open questions SSL undertow As you noticed we don't have a layer for an SSL undertow. elytron doesn't offer an out of the box generation of self-signed certificate. Only legacy security realms offer this. So the way to go would be to provision undertow+elytron+management+tools (management+tools to use CLI), create the keystore, do the elytron configuration, add an https-listener, set the ssl-context, remove all the management related stuff from CLI. Then exclude the management+tools layers to get a smaller foot-print (tools bring a lot). Having tools take a lot is something to attack. CLI in particular. The CLI is useful on OpenShift as the OS console gives you a terminal on each pod from which you can start a local CLI session. That lets you do diagnostic stuff things like tweak log levels etc.  The CLI also gets used for things like health/readiness probes and shutdown.

NB: we could imagine that the CLI configuration is done from a provisioned server that contains tools so no need to provision tools with undertow. I am wandering if we should create an elytron SSL context that points to a "REPLACE_WITH_THE_PATH_TO_YOUR_KEYSTORE" kind of configuration to simplify configuration steps? I don't really like this idea to generate config that points to invalid artifacts but would simplify the configuration steps. Picketbox layer Because we want at some point to get rid-off this dependency, I am wandering if we should really define a layer for it. Could be that any dependency on it would imply the use of legacy-security layer. Picketbox is implicit when legacy-security layer is provisioned. The independent use is the management vault. Using that shouldn't require everything in the current p-b module though. And arguably you could say that use case means you need the vault tool and thus whatever layer has it. (You don't need the vault tool though, not on the server.)

Is there any metadata type concept for marking a layer as deprecated etc?

Full layers granularity For now, we have included some major features (transactions, jca, infinispan) without making them layers. The layers that are depending on them are for the only consumers. When we progress with new layers, this would be revisited. Thank-you for having reached the end. ;-) Phew! JF _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev -- Brian Stansberry Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer Red Hat