[security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
Anil.Saldhana at redhat.com
Thu Apr 11 10:58:56 EDT 2013
I am not sure that we want to have annotations. Let us keep it
simple for the first release.
On 04/11/2013 09:49 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> So, if you guys agree we can start working on the following improvements:
> 1) Rename the attribute jndi-url to jndi-name;
> 2) Publish in JNDI an IdentityManager for each realm. That would look like this:
> picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory/default (for the default realm)
> 3) Add the default attribute for the identity-management element and handle it properly
> 4) Supports a @Realm annotation in order to allow the injection of IdentityManager that maps to a specific realm
> 5) Support custom entities using a attribute to specify a module from where the @IDMEntity classes are + persistence.xml;
> What do you think ?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>, security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:16:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
> On 11 Apr 2013, at 14:35, Stian Thorgersen <stian at redhat.com> wrote:
>> For custom entity classes I have two use cases in mind that we need should test/support:
>> * Layered product that needs to use custom entity classes for sub-systems - in this case there's no JavaEE deployments and the entity classes needs to be within a module. It's also fairly cumbersome to create an EntityManagerFactory from a subsystem so I don't think that should be required
>> * Two applications sharing the same custom entity classes - for example there's a main web app that contains the custom entity classes and the persistence.xml, then there's a utility war that contains one single @Startup @Singleton that is used to create some initial users - the utility war would load a lot quicker than the main web app, so the EMF may not be registered in JNDI in time
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, 11 April, 2013 2:04:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>>> Hi Stian,
>>> Your thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Comments inline.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>>>> To: security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:37:59 AM
>>>> Subject: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>>>> I've had a look at https://community.jboss.org/wiki/PicketLink3Subsystem
>>>> also had a bit of a play with it. It's starting to look really good. I've
>>>> just got a few suggestions:
>>>> Suppress logging
>>>> At the moment there's a lot of logging at info level produced by the
>>>> subsystem, this is mostly Hibernate. It would be great if we could somehow
>>>> manage to suppress this logging output, might be problematic though as
>>>> Hibernate logs this stuff at INFO level when it really should be DEBUG.
>>>> There's also a few WARN's we might want to look into fixing.
>>> Review the logging and messages is one of the things in our TODO list.
>>>> JNDI names in standalone.xml
>>>> I think it makes sense to use the same format for JNDI names as the
>>>> datasource element, since folks will already be used to that. So I suggest
>>>> we change it slightly to look like this:
>>>> <jpa-store data-source=”java:jboss/datasources/ExampleDS" ...>
>>>> <identity-management jndi-name="java:picketlink/ExampleIDM" ...>
>>>> * Full jndi name (including java:) and use jndi-name instead of jndi-url
>>> +1 for that. Not sure from where I got the jndi-url if the jndi-name is like
>>> a pattern used by other subsystems :)
>>>> We need to make sure it works when including org.picketlink,
>>>> org.picketlink.idm, etc in manifest.mf as well as
>>>> jboss-deployment-structure.xml. The documentation should also reflect this.
>>>> One thing I also thought of is that for the future it may be nice to have
>>>> something that detects PicketLink usage in a deployment and automatically
>>>> adds dependencies as required. For example if deployment uses
>>>> @IdentityManager, @Identity, etc. annotations.
>>> +1. I like the idea, ans also mark them as IDM or Core deployments and handle
>>> them properly.
>>>> @Resource doesn't require CDI, so it should be possible to do the following
>>>> without CDI (and without org.picketlink.core):
>>>> @Resource(lookup = "java:/picketlink/DevIdentityManager")
>>>> private IdentityManagerFactory identityManagerFactory;
>>>> I was wondering if we wanted to have the IdentityManager available in JNDI
>>> The problem in publishing the IdentityManager in JNDI is related with realms.
>>> If the IDM config has multiple realms which one should we put ? The default
>>> Give to users the IdentityManagerFactory instead, allow them to use their
>>> configurations as they want.
>>> One thing that I thought about that is if is a good idea to publish all
>>> IdentityManager instances for each configured realm. So, if the IDM config
>>> defines multiple realms, we publish a IdentityManager instance for each of
>>> them. But as we discussed this may become messy.
> I think this is the right approach.
>>> What do you think ?
>>>> I was thinking about a nice way to do the CDI support of injecting a
>>>> 'default' IdentityManager. I propose adding the attribute 'default' to the
>>>> 'identity-management' element (<identity-management default="true" ...>).
>>>> should throw a warning if a user has specified multiple, then we just pick
>>>> one (first one?).
>>> I think we had some discussion about that. I'm +1 for the default attribute.
>>> Ideally, we should throw an exception if multiple configurations are provided
>>> with the default attribute, IMO.
> Agreed, this should be an error.
>>>> This does mean that if a 'identity-management' has the 'default' attribute
>>>> set on it all deployments will by default have that IdentityManager
>>>> into it. We also need a way for users to override this on a per-deployment
>>>> basis. Can we easily detect if a deployment contains configuration for a
>>>> IdentityManager itself?
>>> The IMF can be obtained today in the following ways:
>>> 1) From JNDI (@Resource, InitialContext, etc)
>>> 2) Providing a @Producer that produces a IdentityConfiguration. In this
>>> case the deployment provides its own configuration, instead of using the
>>> subsystem config.
>>> 3) When using the Core services, the deployment must specify a
>>> web.xml#resource-ref. Otherwise the deployment must provides its own
>>> configuration (normal usage of PicketLink Core)
>>> Considering 2), if no IdentityConfiguration is produced, we can automatically
>>> choose the default.
>>> Considering 3), if no web.xml at resource-ref is defined, we can automatically
>>> choose the default.
>>>> Further we need to have a way for a user to specify which IdentityManager
>>>> inject. I think this should be done based on the 'alias' attribute and not
>>>> the 'jndi-name', as we should leave jndi completely out of the picture for
>>>> CDI (resource-ref in web.xml/ejb.xml should be used for JNDI lookup,
>>>> InitialContext#lookup and @Resource, I find it confusing to use this for
>>>> CDI). I propose that we use the ServiceRegistry to retrieve the
>>>> IdentityManagerFactory service based on the alias specified by a @Alias
>>> If you look at the Infinispan subsystem, this is the way it works. Using the
>>> @Resource annotation to inject cachecontainers, etc.
>>> I like that because it is very simple, and requires very little from our and
>>> users side.
> This is also the approach the spec defines to access server resources.
>>> We have a test case that shows how to use CDI qualifiers. It is quite simple.
>>> But at the same time, I agree that use the name is more beautiful than the
>>> jndi-name :).
>>> We can try that, if you want.
> We shouldn't do this, it encourages the CDI anti-pattern of using string based qualifiers.
>>>> private IdentityManager identityManager;
>>>> Obviously users should also be able to add their own qualifiers, I think
>>>> should work:
>>>> @Inject @Alias(“development”)
>>>> @Produces @Development
>>>> private IdentityManager identityManager;
> This won't work, CDI will give you a definition error. You need to use @Resource to access server resources, or what Pedro suggests below.
>>>> One alternative to the above is to change 'alias' to 'name' then we could
>>>> the standard @Named annotation instead of @Alias.
>>> We are not injecting the IdentityManager anymore, but the
>>> IdentityManagerFactory. The @Alias makes sense to get a IdentityManager
>>> instance for a configured realm. Maybe we should consider @Realm, instead.
>>>> Custom Entity Classes
>>>> Personally I don't like the idea of custom entity classes (and
>>>> persistence.xml) being deployed as JavaEE deployments (i.e.
>>>> standalone/deployments). This is also problematic for sub-systems that
>>>> to use the IDM if they need to use custom entity classes (there's a good
>>>> chance we'll need this for EventJuggler). I also think this will be
>>>> problematic if multiple deployments uses the same IdentityManager.
>>>> One idea I had was that we could create a module that contains the custom
>>>> Entity classes, then specify that on the 'jpa-store' element:
>>>> <jpa-store data-source=”java:jboss/datasources/ExampleDS"
>>>> custom-entity-module='org.company.acme.pl' />
> This should work IMO.
>>>> The module 'org.company.acme.pl' would contain a single jar with the Entity
>>>> classes. When 'custom-entity-module' is used we include that module instead
>>>> of 'org.picketlink.idm.schema' module when creating the EMF + we should be
>>>> able to detect the correct classes using the @IDMEntity.
>>> The JPA store lets you use the EMF in two ways:
>>> 1) Using a embedded persistence unit. In this case you need only yo
>>> provide the datasource. The built-in schema (pl-idm-schema) will be used.
>>> 2) Using your own persistence unit. In this case you need to expose your
>>> EMF via JNDI.
>>> Regarding 2), you are not forced to deploy your persistence.xml as a
>>> separated deployment. You can also use the persistence unit deployed with
>>> your application.
>>> I'm going to create some tests so check a possible classloader issue when
>>> using custom entity classes.
More information about the security-dev