[security-dev] PicketLink IDM JPA Identity Store

[Pete Muir]

On 11 Oct 2012, at 16:23, Jason Porter wrote:

> In AS7/EAP6 I'd be less concerned about the entities and more concerned about the datasource definition. Would we ship a jar with the referenced datasource to satisfy the app boot or make the users configure it via the annotations when you get the persistence context, or worse make them unpack the jar, modify the persistence.xml then repack? 
> 
> The easiest thing IMO is to have the entities in the jar w/o any persistence.xml and make the users add the classes to their own persistence.xml. If that's what everyone was thinking before, sorry for the spam. 

That's what I was thinking as well...

> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:54, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Shane, can you elaborate on why we can't package the entity beans in the main jar, but make them only enabled optionally (e.g. via the applications persistence.xml)?
>> 
>> On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:07, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/10/12 00:22, Douglas Campos wrote:
>>>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/10/12 08:05, Douglas Campos wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If the goal is to make available a simple schema for just some
>>>>>>> developers that wanted it, the best way to do this is to provide an
>>>>>>> additional, optional jar file containing just the simple schema entity
>>>>>>> beans (call it picketlink-idm-defaultschema or something like this)
>>>>>>> rather than provide an entirely new implementation.  This way we avoid
>>>>>>> the burden of having to maintain two implementations, and also avoid the
>>>>>>> aforementioned problem of having unwanted entity beans in the
>>>>>>> distribution for developers that don't want to use the simple schema.
>>>>>> So we go from complex to simple? Did you mean the opposite?
>>>>> I don't understand the question, sorry?
>>>> Optional jar file for the simple schema? shouldn't it be the opposite?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No no - the point I've been (seemingly unsuccessfully) trying to make is 
>>> that we *must not* include any entity beans by default.  If we did it 
>>> would cause a multitude of problems for our users.  If we do want to 
>>> provide a default schema that some of our users *may* elect to use 
>>> instead of providing their own, it must be in a separate jar file.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> security-dev mailing list
>>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> security-dev mailing list
>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev