[security-dev] JPA?

Jason Greene jgreene at redhat.com
Tue Jun 11 18:39:14 EDT 2013

You lost me. I don't understand why an application needs an abstraction (picketlink API) if they are also coding against the data raw.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:

> Sorry Bill, but that's nonsense.  In Seam, the Identity bean (now part 
> of the PicketLink API) was a core component of most applications, at 
> least those that required any type of security.  I agree with your 
> statement that developers won't be using the "PicketLink data model" to 
> develop their applications, this is something that's largely hidden 
> behind more developer-friendly abstractions.  What PicketLink will do 
> though is work with an existing application model to enable more fluid 
> integration between them.  Once PLINK-130 is complete we can perhaps 
> give some more illuminating examples, but to summarise, you'll be able 
> to define your own identity classes (rather than use the ones built-in 
> to PicketLink) complete with custom attributes - for example, your 
> application might require a User class that has properties (attributes) 
> for addresses and contact details, which would actually be persisted via 
> corresponding entity beans within the application.  The changes we're 
> working on now will allow this and more.
> On 12/06/13 08:15, Bill Burke wrote:
>> Most non-framework developers, even Seam ones, will never see the
>> Picketlink API.  Most will be picking pre-made widgets and assemblying
>> these widgets together  through configuration or the management console.
>>   Most Framework developers will want to write plugins that are usable
>> with any storage back end, this also means no JPA.
>> I think you're fooling yourself if you think app developers are going to
>> use the Picketlink data model to developer their applications.  If
>> anything users are going to have existing models and security
>> infrastructure they need to integrate with.
>> On 6/11/2013 6:03 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>>> Of course there is, close to 100% of the developers that use/used Seam
>>> would have been using JPA. Remember that the identity model will for
>>> many use cases also tie into the application model, in fact the
>>> refactoring that I'm working on for PLINK-130 will help to strengthen
>>> this connection.
>>> On 12/06/13 07:04, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> How exactly does JPA give users more control over their data than JDBC?
>>>>     Also, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you that there is this large
>>>> contingent of app deveopers that want JPA.
>>>> On 6/11/2013 4:57 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>>> Bill,  application developers will care about JPA vs JDBC if they want
>>>>> greater control on things like roles, groups etc. While container driven
>>>>> security is good for many applications, a large contingent of app
>>>>> developers just want greater control on determining the roles/groups of
>>>>> users authenticating to their app.
>>>>> On 06/11/2013 03:53 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev

More information about the security-dev mailing list