+1 and one more question. During the hangouts we agreed on move this to
the service[1]. The downside is the fact that our service doesn't have
SecurityContext as maven dependency, which would imply on add it.
What works best to YOU GUYS (the team :P). Leave it as is:
https://gist.github.com/abstractj/3873482db8f4535aefe0#file-pushapplicationendpoint-java-L95
Or:
boolean isAdmin = securityContext.isUserInRole("admin");
return Response.ok(pushAppService.findAllPushApplicationsByUser(isAdmin, extractUsername(request))).build();
Or:
return Response.ok(pushAppService.findAllPushApplicationsByUser(securityContext, extractUsername(request))).build();
[1] -
https://gist.github.com/abstractj/3873482db8f4535aefe0#file-pushapplicationendpoint-java-L95
On 2014-10-10, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> hangout result: no need to add lot's of IFs - since only the "finder" for
> PushApplications will have a different behavior (meaning for admin -> all;
> for developer -> just my own apps)
> At this point no need of a specific admin-ish endpoint, nor no need to
> create a new "admin" UI.
>
> However, once we are in a need to do more tweaks for an admin user (e.g. in
> a year or so): yes, there should not be any more IFs but a more cleaner
> approcah, like extra classes as Bruno did suggest.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > "you guys" :)
> >
> > I think the only different between 'admin' and developer' role is really
> > the result of the "findAllPushApplicationsForDeveloper()"
> >
> > everything else would be the same
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I really want to confirm this. So this is what you guys want:
> >>
> >> -
> >> https://gist.github.com/abstractj/3873482db8f4535aefe0#file-pushapplicationendpoint-java-L109
> >> -
> >> https://gist.github.com/abstractj/3873482db8f4535aefe0#file-pushapplicationendpoint-java-L132
> >> -
> >> https://gist.github.com/abstractj/3873482db8f4535aefe0#file-pushapplicationendpoint-java-L172
> >> -
> >> https://gist.github.com/abstractj/3873482db8f4535aefe0#file-pushapplicationendpoint-java-L199
> >>
> >> And with more methods we add more IFs, right?
> >>
> >> On 2014-10-10, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On 2014-10-09, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Sébastien Blanc <
> >> scm.blanc@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Another option could be :
> >> > > > > - no change or addition of any endpoint
> >> > > > > -no change on the angular side
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Since the result is the same : we want a list of applications (for
> >> > > admin
> >> > > > > there is just no restriction on developer that owns it)
> >> > > > > But in the service layer when retrieving the applications we
> >> check the
> >> > > > > role (do we have a method hasRole(string) ? ) to see if we add the
> >> > > criteria
> >> > > > > of developer.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > yeah, that;s what I had in my email from last night as well. the
> >> service
> >> > > > returns a list of applications.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think this is very clear to everyone and the basic principle of this
> >> > > jira.
> >> > >
> >> > > > Inside we handle the different cases:
> >> > > > - admin
> >> > > > Select all (e.g. "select pa from PushApplication pa")
> >> > > > -developer
> >> > > > select 'my apps' (e.g. "select pa from PushApplication pa where
> >> > > > pa.developer = :loginName")
> >> > >
> >> > > This is the recommendation from KC documentation
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> http://docs.jboss.org/keycloak/docs/1.0.2.Final/userguide/html/ch07.html#d4e611
> >> > > .
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I understand their example, but we don't really (within UPS) have a
> >> > completely different UI between "admin" and "developer" roles.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > So what do you guys suggest is: If I have several methods to validate
> >> > > multiple roles, just add if/else all along the UPS code? And if I
> >> have a
> >> > > new
> >> > > role, include more ifs?
> >> > >
> >> > > I think it can be done inject the SecurityContext, have to check with
> >> > > Stian and Bill. But it doesn't seem right.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > might not be the most elegant, but looks like it avoids adding too much
> >> new
> >> > code. Especially since the UI for 'admin' and 'developer' is pretty much
> >> > the same.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Matthias
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Le 9 oct. 2014 à 17:45, Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org> a
> >> > > écrit :
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Good morning, moving forward with
> >> > > > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-1036. What is the most
> >> > > > > > recommended approach for admin-ui.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Have separated endpoints for the admin like:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 1.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > @RolesAllowed("admin")
> >> > > > > > @Path("/admin/applications")
> >> > > > > > public class AdminApplicationEndpoint extends
> >> AbstractBaseEndpoint {
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > @GET
> >> > > > > > @Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
> >> > > > > > public Response listAllPushApplications(){
> >> > > > > > //queries
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Or introduce a new method inside the current
> >> PushApplicationEndpoint:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 2.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > @GET
> >> > > > > > @Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
> >> > > > > > @RolesAllowed("admin")
> >> > > > > > public Response listAllPushApplications(){
> >> > > > > > //queries
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > // READ
> >> > > > > > @GET
> >> > > > > > @Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
> >> > > > > > public Response listAllPushApplicationsByUsername(@Context
> >> > > > > HttpServletRequest request) {
> >> > > > > > return
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> Response.ok(pushAppService.findAllPushApplicationsForDeveloper(extractUsername(request))).build();
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > If the option 2 is the correct. How the Angular.js service
> >> would look
> >> > > > > > like? Once the username is not informed as argument on
> >> > > > > > pushApplicationService.js, because for obvious reasons it can be
> >> > > > > > retrieved with HttpServletRequest.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > One of my poor ideas due to my "amazing" Angular skills would
> >> be to
> >> > > do
> >> > > > > > something like:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > @GET
> >> > > > > > @Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
> >> > > > > > @RolesAllowed("admin")
> >> > > > > > @Path("/all")
> >> > > > > > public Response listAllPushApplications(){
> >> > > > > > //queries
> >> > > > > > }
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > And:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > backendMod.factory('pushApplication', function ($resource) {
> >> > > > > > return $resource('rest/applications/all/:verb', {
> >> > > > > > .....
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Help?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > abstractj
> >> > > > > > PGP: 0x84DC9914
> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> > > > > > aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> > > > > aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> >> > > >
> >> > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >> > >
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> > > > aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> > > abstractj
> >> > > PGP: 0x84DC9914
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> > > aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >> >
> >> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> > aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> abstractj
> >> PGP: 0x84DC9914
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev