[infinispan-dev] Passing JCache remote manager propietary configuration options (ISPN-6438)

[Galder Zamarreño]

--
Galder Zamarreño
Infinispan, Red Hat

> On 6 Apr 2016, at 12:29, Gustavo Fernandes <gustavo at infinispan.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been looking at [1] and the way I see it, there are two ways to solve this: 
> 
> 1. A key benefit of JCache/JCacheManager is that you can construct JCacheManager instances using standard APIs, e.g. calling Cachie.getCachingProvider().getCacheManager(...). One way to solve this issue would be if we exposed a propietary way to create an Infinispan remote JCacheManager, e.g.
> 
> new org.infinispan.jcache.remote.JCacheManager(RemoteCacheManager) or
> new org.infinispan.jcache.remote.JCacheManager(ConfigurationBuilder)
> ...etc, or similar solutions
> 
> The problem with this approach is that we force users to create JCacheManager instances using implementation detail APIs.
> 
> 2. The only way you can pass in implementation specific configuration options to JCacheManager instances using standard APIs is via a Properties file. So, the other solution is to have the missing client configuration options available as being able to configure them via Properties. The main limitation here is that property values must be String values. According to Tristan, this could limit some security configuration for options that can be converted into String values. Looking at org.infinispan.client.hotrod.configuration.SslConfigurationBuilder, the only configuration option that might have such issue is passing in a javax.net.ssl.SSLContext instance, but I don't see the sslContext() method used anywhere...? The rest of SSL options take either a String or char[] so those would not be problematic.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Regardless of JCache, I think a HotRod client should be configurable via properties only (this is needed for [2]) as described in [1], maybe we could introduce factories for non-String based configs?

Interesting idea about using factories for non-String configs but not sure that will work? I mean, you'd provide the FQN of the factory class, which would be instantiated with reflection an an empty constructor. What about if that factory relied on some kind of initialization? IOW, if the thing you're building comes from something else?

I don't know the SSLContext use case enough to know if your suggestion would work. Maybe @Tristan can chime in?

Cheers,

> 
> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPRK-16
> 
> 
> Gustavo
> 
>  
> 
> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-6438
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> Infinispan, Red Hat
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev