[security-dev] JPA?

[Anil Saldhana]

On 06/11/2013 03:56 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
> Also, IMO, JDBC is more flexible if users need to massage queries or
> have different table mappings.
Agree. But JDBC configuration gets into a non-standard language compared 
to orm.xml? But it is manageable.
>
> On 6/11/2013 4:53 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>> JPA vs. JDBC isn't a choice, users won't care.  Why would app developers
>> care either?  They should be using management interfaces or the upcoming
>> sso server to manage their domains.
>>
>> On 6/11/2013 4:39 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>> Jason - I will let others chime in their thoughts.
>>>
>>> We want to support as many Identity Store implementations as possible.
>>> We implemented a File Store implementation mainly to aid its usage as
>>> the default identity store implementation in WildFly.
>>> I have no issues in providing an additional JDBC identity store
>>> implementation. It just gives the users more implementations to choose from.
>>>
>>>     From application developers perspective, I think the balance still
>>> swings toward JPA. But for Wildfly core authentication using PicketLink
>>> IDM, for database backends, JDBC makes sense.
>>>
>>> It will be at least a couple of months before we attempt a JDBC
>>> implementation due to 2.5.0 release. That is why I placed the JIRA issue
>>> fix to be 2.5.1. I think this works for Wildfly roadmap.
>>>
>>> On 06/11/2013 03:14 PM, Jason Greene wrote:
>>>> I thought it best to move the discussion on undertow to here.
>>>>
>>>> Anil opened a JIRA to investigate:
>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/PLINK-190
>>>>
>>>> My concerns are:
>>>>
>>>> - Initialization Time (JPA has always been expensive in this area)
>>>> - Dependency chain problems (if this forces the app server (which at some point might not be limited to Java EE) to have a big chunk of EE just to support database auth)
>>>> - Potential increase of memory usage? (in particular if we end up with hibernate using infinispan as a cache which is then double cached at the auth level)
>>>>
>>>> I guess the main reason for the switch from JDBC is to avoid supporting various DB dialects. However, the following is also true:
>>>>
>>>> - ANSI SQL-92 is supported by almost everyone, and it allows for portable DML
>>>> - IDMs have very simple relational layouts and queries
>>>> - It's easy to abstract queries to allow customization by a user
>>>>
>>>>