6:40 p.m.
Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I will do my best to
answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev mailing list so others
can chime in.
First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds great - we haven't
focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get much more demand for
managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said, better SOAP support is
certainly on the radar. When that happens, my hope is that processing
the envelope might be a core part of the gateway and so implementing
policies that use information in there will be easier. Perhaps your
implementation can be the genesis of some of that work!
To your question - without core changes to apiman, the approach you
*need* to take is to have your policy implement IDataPolicy. I believe
you may have already tried that, and observed that you cannot send
proper policy failures from that method. You are right - that's
something we will need to fix! I think you should be able to throw a
runtime exception from the write(IApimanBuffer chunk) method if you
detect an error. However, this is a little bit hacky!
Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we perhaps work together
to bake SOAP support directly into the core of apiman, such that the
SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the policy chain is executed. We
could expose, for example, the SOAP headers as a proper Map<> stored
either in the context or on the ApiRequest. This would allow you to
properly implement most (all?) WS-* protocols as proper apiman policies
in the apply(ApiRequest request) method.
Thoughts?
-Eric
On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Greetings,
I first thought to write this question as an issue on Github, but it
seemed better to write you a direct email.
I am making a custom WS Security policy, that reads the body and check
the UsernameToken security header. This works OK, but now I've hit a wall.
In the doApply method I get the rawRequest object and read the body from
the ServletInputStream of the request. The problem I'm facing now is
that the input stream was read and it can't be reset back to it's
initial state.
I was also trying to implement the same logic in the requestDataHandler
method, but I don't know if it is even possible to send a failure
message to the request chain from there.
Any suggesstions ?
Best regards,
Benjamin
12:06 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Hi,
I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request body, which is
contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a temporary buffer. I then
process the data (authentication) and based on the results proceed with the
policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end() method of the
requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my temporary buffer using
super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward the request to then ext
policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky way of doing this.
I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But I would need a few
pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP headers in the ApiRequest
object seems like a good idea.
2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com>:
Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I will do my best
to
answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev mailing list so others can
chime in.
First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds great - we haven't
focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get much more demand for
managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said, better SOAP support is
certainly on the radar. When that happens, my hope is that processing the
envelope might be a core part of the gateway and so implementing policies
that use information in there will be easier. Perhaps your implementation
can be the genesis of some of that work!
To your question - without core changes to apiman, the approach you *need*
to take is to have your policy implement IDataPolicy. I believe you may
have already tried that, and observed that you cannot send proper policy
failures from that method. You are right - that's something we will need
to fix! I think you should be able to throw a runtime exception from the
write(IApimanBuffer chunk) method if you detect an error. However, this is
a little bit hacky!
Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we perhaps work together to
bake SOAP support directly into the core of apiman, such that the SOAP
envelope is read/parsed *before* the policy chain is executed. We could
expose, for example, the SOAP headers as a proper Map<> stored either in
the context or on the ApiRequest. This would allow you to properly
implement most (all?) WS-* protocols as proper apiman policies in the
apply(ApiRequest request) method.
Thoughts?
-Eric
On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I first thought to write this question as an issue on Github, but it
> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>
> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that reads the body and check
> the UsernameToken security header. This works OK, but now I've hit a wall.
>
> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest object and read the body from
> the ServletInputStream of the request. The problem I'm facing now is
> that the input stream was read and it can't be reset back to it's
> initial state.
>
> I was also trying to implement the same logic in the requestDataHandler
> method, but I don't know if it is even possible to send a failure
> message to the request chain from there.
>
> Any suggesstions ?
>
> Best regards,
> Benjamin
>
--
Lp, Benjamin
5:37 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as well. I'm
actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could make the
relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale at this
point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be very useful.
To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should be extracted
prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
* The encoding style
* All SOAP headers
* SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
* ???
For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the following form:
<HeaderName xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
It can also have the optional "actor" or "mustUnderstand" attributes.
The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not sure if the
above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more complex than the
above?
-Eric
On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Hi,
I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request body, which is
contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a temporary buffer. I then
process the data (authentication) and based on the results proceed with
the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end() method of the
requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my temporary buffer
using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward the request to
then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky way of doing this.
I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But I would need a
few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP headers in the
ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I will do my best
to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev mailing list so
others can chime in.
First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds great - we haven't
focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get much more demand
for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said, better SOAP
support is certainly on the radar. When that happens, my hope is
that processing the envelope might be a core part of the gateway and
so implementing policies that use information in there will be
easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the genesis of some of
that work!
To your question - without core changes to apiman, the approach you
*need* to take is to have your policy implement IDataPolicy. I
believe you may have already tried that, and observed that you
cannot send proper policy failures from that method. You are right
- that's something we will need to fix! I think you should be able
to throw a runtime exception from the write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
method if you detect an error. However, this is a little bit hacky!
Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we perhaps work
together to bake SOAP support directly into the core of apiman, such
that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the policy chain is
executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP headers as a
proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the ApiRequest.
This would allow you to properly implement most (all?) WS-*
protocols as proper apiman policies in the apply(ApiRequest request)
method.
Thoughts?
-Eric
On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Greetings,
I first thought to write this question as an issue on Github, but it
seemed better to write you a direct email.
I am making a custom WS Security policy, that reads the body and
check
the UsernameToken security header. This works OK, but now I've
hit a wall.
In the doApply method I get the rawRequest object and read the
body from
the ServletInputStream of the request. The problem I'm facing now is
that the input stream was read and it can't be reset back to it's
initial state.
I was also trying to implement the same logic in the
requestDataHandler
method, but I don't know if it is even possible to send a failure
message to the request chain from there.
Any suggesstions ?
Best regards,
Benjamin
--
Lp, Benjamin
6:39 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good example of this in practice.
~ keith
On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com> wrote:
That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as well. I'm
actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could make the
relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale at this
point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be very useful.
To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should be extracted
prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
* The encoding style
* All SOAP headers
* SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
* ???
For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the following form:
<HeaderName xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
It can also have the optional "actor" or "mustUnderstand" attributes.
The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not sure if the
above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more complex than the
above?
-Eric
On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request body, which is
> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a temporary buffer. I then
> process the data (authentication) and based on the results proceed with
> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end() method of the
> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my temporary buffer
> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward the request to
> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky way of doing this.
>
> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But I would need a
> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP headers in the
> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>
> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>
> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I will do my best
> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev mailing list so
> others can chime in.
>
> First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds great - we haven't
> focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get much more demand
> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said, better SOAP
> support is certainly on the radar. When that happens, my hope is
> that processing the envelope might be a core part of the gateway and
> so implementing policies that use information in there will be
> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the genesis of some of
> that work!
>
> To your question - without core changes to apiman, the approach you
> *need* to take is to have your policy implement IDataPolicy. I
> believe you may have already tried that, and observed that you
> cannot send proper policy failures from that method. You are right
> - that's something we will need to fix! I think you should be able
> to throw a runtime exception from the write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
> method if you detect an error. However, this is a little bit hacky!
>
> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we perhaps work
> together to bake SOAP support directly into the core of apiman, such
> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the policy chain is
> executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP headers as a
> proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the ApiRequest.
> This would allow you to properly implement most (all?) WS-*
> protocols as proper apiman policies in the apply(ApiRequest request)
> method.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I first thought to write this question as an issue on Github, but it
> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>
> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that reads the body and
> check
> the UsernameToken security header. This works OK, but now I've
> hit a wall.
>
> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest object and read the
> body from
> the ServletInputStream of the request. The problem I'm facing now is
> that the input stream was read and it can't be reset back to it's
> initial state.
>
> I was also trying to implement the same logic in the
> requestDataHandler
> method, but I don't know if it is even possible to send a failure
> message to the request chain from there.
>
> Any suggesstions ?
>
> Best regards,
> Benjamin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lp, Benjamin
_______________________________________________
Apiman-dev mailing list
Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
7:14 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM Element
objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be best.
-Eric
On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good example of
this in practice.
~ keith
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as well. I'm
> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
>
> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could make the
> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale at this
> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be very useful.
>
> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should be extracted
> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
>
> * The encoding style
> * All SOAP headers
> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
> * ???
>
> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the following
> form:
>
> <HeaderName xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>
> It can also have the optional "actor" or "mustUnderstand"
attributes.
> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not sure if the
> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more complex than the
> above?
>
> -Eric
>
> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request body, which is
>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a temporary buffer. I then
>> process the data (authentication) and based on the results proceed with
>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end() method of the
>> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my temporary buffer
>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward the request to
>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky way of doing
>> this.
>>
>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But I would need a
>> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP headers in the
>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>>
>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
>>
>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I will do my best
>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev mailing list so
>> others can chime in.
>>
>> First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds great - we haven't
>> focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get much more demand
>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said, better SOAP
>> support is certainly on the radar. When that happens, my hope is
>> that processing the envelope might be a core part of the gateway and
>> so implementing policies that use information in there will be
>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the genesis of some of
>> that work!
>>
>> To your question - without core changes to apiman, the approach you
>> *need* to take is to have your policy implement IDataPolicy. I
>> believe you may have already tried that, and observed that you
>> cannot send proper policy failures from that method. You are right
>> - that's something we will need to fix! I think you should be able
>> to throw a runtime exception from the write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>> method if you detect an error. However, this is a little bit hacky!
>>
>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we perhaps work
>> together to bake SOAP support directly into the core of apiman, such
>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the policy chain is
>> executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP headers as a
>> proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the ApiRequest.
>> This would allow you to properly implement most (all?) WS-*
>> protocols as proper apiman policies in the apply(ApiRequest request)
>> method.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>>
>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I first thought to write this question as an issue on Github,
>> but it
>> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>>
>> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that reads the body and
>> check
>> the UsernameToken security header. This works OK, but now I've
>> hit a wall.
>>
>> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest object and read the
>> body from
>> the ServletInputStream of the request. The problem I'm facing
>> now is
>> that the input stream was read and it can't be reset back to it's
>> initial state.
>>
>> I was also trying to implement the same logic in the
>> requestDataHandler
>> method, but I don't know if it is even possible to send a failure
>> message to the request chain from there.
>>
>> Any suggesstions ?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lp, Benjamin
> _______________________________________________
> Apiman-dev mailing list
> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
7:48 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several validators (wss4j
for example) require DOM Elements (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to function.
Best regards,
Benjamin
2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com>:
Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM Element
objects
(perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be best.
-Eric
On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good example of
> this in practice.
>
> ~ keith
>
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as well. I'm
>> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
>>
>> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could make the
>> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale at this
>> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be very useful.
>>
>> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should be extracted
>> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
>>
>> * The encoding style
>> * All SOAP headers
>> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
>> * ???
>>
>> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the following
>> form:
>>
>> <HeaderName xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>>
>> It can also have the optional "actor" or "mustUnderstand"
attributes.
>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not sure if the
>> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more complex than the
>> above?
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request body, which is
>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a temporary buffer. I then
>>> process the data (authentication) and based on the results proceed with
>>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end() method of the
>>> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my temporary buffer
>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward the request to
>>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky way of doing
>>> this.
>>>
>>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But I would need a
>>> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP headers in the
>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>>>
>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
>>>
>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I will do my best
>>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev mailing list so
>>> others can chime in.
>>>
>>> First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds great - we haven't
>>> focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get much more demand
>>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said, better SOAP
>>> support is certainly on the radar. When that happens, my hope is
>>> that processing the envelope might be a core part of the gateway and
>>> so implementing policies that use information in there will be
>>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the genesis of some of
>>> that work!
>>>
>>> To your question - without core changes to apiman, the approach you
>>> *need* to take is to have your policy implement IDataPolicy. I
>>> believe you may have already tried that, and observed that you
>>> cannot send proper policy failures from that method. You are right
>>> - that's something we will need to fix! I think you should be able
>>> to throw a runtime exception from the write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>>> method if you detect an error. However, this is a little bit hacky!
>>>
>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we perhaps work
>>> together to bake SOAP support directly into the core of apiman, such
>>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the policy chain is
>>> executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP headers as a
>>> proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the ApiRequest.
>>> This would allow you to properly implement most (all?) WS-*
>>> protocols as proper apiman policies in the apply(ApiRequest request)
>>> method.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I first thought to write this question as an issue on Github,
>>> but it
>>> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>>>
>>> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that reads the body and
>>> check
>>> the UsernameToken security header. This works OK, but now I've
>>> hit a wall.
>>>
>>> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest object and read the
>>> body from
>>> the ServletInputStream of the request. The problem I'm facing
>>> now is
>>> that the input stream was read and it can't be reset back to
it's
>>> initial state.
>>>
>>> I was also trying to implement the same logic in the
>>> requestDataHandler
>>> method, but I don't know if it is even possible to send a failure
>>> message to the request chain from there.
>>>
>>> Any suggesstions ?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Benjamin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>>
>
>
--
Lp, Benjamin
1:52 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
*If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will *always* look for a
soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap envelope is
found in the body, then a standard apiman error will be thrown.
If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the HTTP
request until we find "<soap:Body>". We'll extract the
<soap:Header>
and parse its children. While parsing, we'll obviously keep the data we
read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done, we'll include the soap
headers, soap action, and the global encoding type in some sort of
soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request as normal,
executing the policy chain, then processing the request body, etc. The
entire request payload will still be processed (remember that we saved
the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look identical
except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy context.
Thoughts?
-Eric
On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several validators
(wss4j for example) require DOM Elements (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
function.
Best regards,
Benjamin
2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM Element
objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be best.
-Eric
On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good example of
this in practice.
~ keith
On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as
well. I'm
actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could
make the
relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale
at this
point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be
very useful.
To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should
be extracted
prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
* The encoding style
* All SOAP headers
* SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
* ???
For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the
following
form:
<HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
It can also have the optional "actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
attributes.
The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not
sure if the
above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more
complex than the
above?
-Eric
On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Hi,
I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request
body, which is
contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a
temporary buffer. I then
process the data (authentication) and based on the
results proceed with
the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end()
method of the
requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my
temporary buffer
using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward
the request to
then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky
way of doing
this.
I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But
I would need a
few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP
headers in the
ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I
will do my best
to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev
mailing list so
others can chime in.
First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds
great - we haven't
focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get
much more demand
for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said,
better SOAP
support is certainly on the radar. When that
happens, my hope is
that processing the envelope might be a core part of
the gateway and
so implementing policies that use information in
there will be
easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the
genesis of some of
that work!
To your question - without core changes to apiman,
the approach you
*need* to take is to have your policy implement
IDataPolicy. I
believe you may have already tried that, and
observed that you
cannot send proper policy failures from that
method. You are right
- that's something we will need to fix! I think you
should be able
to throw a runtime exception from the
write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
method if you detect an error. However, this is a
little bit hacky!
Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we
perhaps work
together to bake SOAP support directly into the core
of apiman, such
that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the
policy chain is
executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP
headers as a
proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the
ApiRequest.
This would allow you to properly implement most
(all?) WS-*
protocols as proper apiman policies in the
apply(ApiRequest request)
method.
Thoughts?
-Eric
On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Greetings,
I first thought to write this question as an
issue on Github,
but it
seemed better to write you a direct email.
I am making a custom WS Security policy, that
reads the body and
check
the UsernameToken security header. This works
OK, but now I've
hit a wall.
In the doApply method I get the rawRequest
object and read the
body from
the ServletInputStream of the request. The
problem I'm facing
now is
that the input stream was read and it can't be
reset back to it's
initial state.
I was also trying to implement the same logic in the
requestDataHandler
method, but I don't know if it is even possible
to send a failure
message to the request chain from there.
Any suggesstions ?
Best regards,
Benjamin
--
Lp, Benjamin
_______________________________________________
Apiman-dev mailing list
Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
--
Lp, Benjamin
2:13 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to make life slightly more complicated,
will the headers policy be updated to allow add/remove of SOAP:Headers? :-)
~ keith
On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com> wrote:
OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
*If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will *always* look for a soap
envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap envelope is found in the body, then
a standard apiman error will be thrown.
If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the HTTP request until we find
"<soap:Body>". We'll extract the <soap:Header> and parse its
children. While parsing, we'll obviously keep the data we read in a memory buffer.
Once parsing is done, we'll include the soap headers, soap action, and the global
encoding type in some sort of soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request as normal, executing the
policy chain, then processing the request body, etc. The entire request payload will still
be processed (remember that we saved the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look identical except that a
SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy context.
Thoughts?
-Eric
On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several validators
> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
> function.
>
> Best regards,
> Benjamin
>
> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>
> Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM Element
> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be best.
>
> -Eric
>
> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>
> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good example of
> this in practice.
>
> ~ keith
>
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>
> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as
> well. I'm
> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
>
> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could
> make the
> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale
> at this
> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be
> very useful.
>
> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should
> be extracted
> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
>
> * The encoding style
> * All SOAP headers
> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
> * ???
>
> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the
> following
> form:
>
> <HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>
> It can also have the optional "actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
> attributes.
> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not
> sure if the
> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more
> complex than the
> above?
>
> -Eric
>
> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request
> body, which is
> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a
> temporary buffer. I then
> process the data (authentication) and based on the
> results proceed with
> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end()
> method of the
> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my
> temporary buffer
> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward
> the request to
> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky
> way of doing
> this.
>
> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But
> I would need a
> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP
> headers in the
> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>
> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>
> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I
> will do my best
> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev
> mailing list so
> others can chime in.
>
> First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds
> great - we haven't
> focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get
> much more demand
> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said,
> better SOAP
> support is certainly on the radar. When that
> happens, my hope is
> that processing the envelope might be a core part of
> the gateway and
> so implementing policies that use information in
> there will be
> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the
> genesis of some of
> that work!
>
> To your question - without core changes to apiman,
> the approach you
> *need* to take is to have your policy implement
> IDataPolicy. I
> believe you may have already tried that, and
> observed that you
> cannot send proper policy failures from that
> method. You are right
> - that's something we will need to fix! I think you
> should be able
> to throw a runtime exception from the
> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
> method if you detect an error. However, this is a
> little bit hacky!
>
> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we
> perhaps work
> together to bake SOAP support directly into the core
> of apiman, such
> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the
> policy chain is
> executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP
> headers as a
> proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the
> ApiRequest.
> This would allow you to properly implement most
> (all?) WS-*
> protocols as proper apiman policies in the
> apply(ApiRequest request)
> method.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I first thought to write this question as an
> issue on Github,
> but it
> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>
> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that
> reads the body and
> check
> the UsernameToken security header. This works
> OK, but now I've
> hit a wall.
>
> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest
> object and read the
> body from
> the ServletInputStream of the request. The
> problem I'm facing
> now is
> that the input stream was read and it can't be
> reset back to it's
> initial state.
>
> I was also trying to implement the same logic in the
> requestDataHandler
> method, but I don't know if it is even possible
> to send a failure
> message to the request chain from there.
>
> Any suggesstions ?
>
> Best regards,
> Benjamin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lp, Benjamin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Apiman-dev mailing list
> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lp, Benjamin
2:38 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to inject the headers into
the request than it is to inject HTTP request headers, obviously. But
not impossible. We'd need to be aware of the change to any
Content-Length that may be set.
This makes the implementation slightly more complicated, because I think
the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter (it will need to send
the <soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header> sections first, then just stream
the remaining request body as-is.
So perhaps what we have is this:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
3. <soap:Header>
4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
5. </soap:Header>
6. <soap:Body>
7. <m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
9. </m:GetStockPrice>
10. </soap:Body>
11. </soap:Envelope>
Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman *before* any policies are
executed. We'll actually keep reading until we find <soap:Body> in the
request body. We'll throw out everything before line #6 from our
in-memory buffer, resulting in a buffer with just line #6 (and any extra
bytes after that based on our I/O chunk size).
The policies will be executed, which may result in soap headers being
added, modified, or removed. If all policies pass, then we proxy the
request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP connection would simply send
all bytes from the HTTP request as-is. Instead, we'll need to
*generate* new content for lines 1-5, with the newly modified soap
headers. Once the generated content is sent, then we send the contents
of the in-memory buffer (which contains line #6+ any additional bytes).
After that, we proxy the remaining bytes from the HTTP request as-is.
This may be starting to take shape. :)
Additional thoughts?
-Eric
PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for manipulating SOAP
headers, rather than re-use the existing HTTP headers policy.
On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to make life
slightly
more complicated, will the headers policy be updated to allow add/remove
of SOAP:Headers? :-)
~ keith
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
>
> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will *always* look for a
> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap envelope is
> found in the body, then a standard apiman error will be thrown.
>
> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the HTTP
> request until we find "<soap:Body>". We'll extract the
<soap:Header>
> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll obviously keep the data
> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done, we'll include the
> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding type in some sort
> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
>
> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request as normal,
> executing the policy chain, then processing the request body, etc. The
> entire request payload will still be processed (remember that we saved
> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
>
> So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look identical
> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy context.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Eric
>
> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several validators
>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
>> function.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Benjamin
>>
>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
>>
>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM Element
>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be best.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>>
>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good
>> example of
>> this in practice.
>>
>> ~ keith
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as
>> well. I'm
>> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
>>
>> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could
>> make the
>> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale
>> at this
>> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be
>> very useful.
>>
>> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should
>> be extracted
>> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
>>
>> * The encoding style
>> * All SOAP headers
>> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
>> * ???
>>
>> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the
>> following
>> form:
>>
>> <HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>>
>> It can also have the optional "actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
>> attributes.
>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not
>> sure if the
>> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more
>> complex than the
>> above?
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request
>> body, which is
>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a
>> temporary buffer. I then
>> process the data (authentication) and based on the
>> results proceed with
>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end()
>> method of the
>> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my
>> temporary buffer
>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward
>> the request to
>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky
>> way of doing
>> this.
>>
>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But
>> I would need a
>> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP
>> headers in the
>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>>
>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>>
>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I
>> will do my best
>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev
>> mailing list so
>> others can chime in.
>>
>> First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds
>> great - we haven't
>> focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get
>> much more demand
>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said,
>> better SOAP
>> support is certainly on the radar. When that
>> happens, my hope is
>> that processing the envelope might be a core part of
>> the gateway and
>> so implementing policies that use information in
>> there will be
>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the
>> genesis of some of
>> that work!
>>
>> To your question - without core changes to apiman,
>> the approach you
>> *need* to take is to have your policy implement
>> IDataPolicy. I
>> believe you may have already tried that, and
>> observed that you
>> cannot send proper policy failures from that
>> method. You are right
>> - that's something we will need to fix! I think you
>> should be able
>> to throw a runtime exception from the
>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>> method if you detect an error. However, this is a
>> little bit hacky!
>>
>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we
>> perhaps work
>> together to bake SOAP support directly into the core
>> of apiman, such
>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the
>> policy chain is
>> executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP
>> headers as a
>> proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the
>> ApiRequest.
>> This would allow you to properly implement most
>> (all?) WS-*
>> protocols as proper apiman policies in the
>> apply(ApiRequest request)
>> method.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>>
>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I first thought to write this question as an
>> issue on Github,
>> but it
>> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>>
>> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that
>> reads the body and
>> check
>> the UsernameToken security header. This works
>> OK, but now I've
>> hit a wall.
>>
>> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest
>> object and read the
>> body from
>> the ServletInputStream of the request. The
>> problem I'm facing
>> now is
>> that the input stream was read and it can't be
>> reset back to it's
>> initial state.
>>
>> I was also trying to implement the same logic
>> in the
>> requestDataHandler
>> method, but I don't know if it is even possible
>> to send a failure
>> message to the request chain from there.
>>
>> Any suggesstions ?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lp, Benjamin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lp, Benjamin
3:34 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName and DOM-aware, so that
namespace-qualified headers can be added and appropriate namespace definitions can be
added to the DOM if required. Of course you already know all this, but pointing it out
makes me feel useful.
On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com> wrote:
That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to inject the headers into the
request than it is to inject HTTP request headers, obviously. But not impossible.
We'd need to be aware of the change to any Content-Length that may be set.
This makes the implementation slightly more complicated, because I think the HTTP
connector will need to be made smarter (it will need to send the <soap:Envelope> and
<soap:Header> sections first, then just stream the remaining request body as-is.
So perhaps what we have is this:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
3. <soap:Header>
4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
5. </soap:Header>
6. <soap:Body>
7. <m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
9. </m:GetStockPrice>
10. </soap:Body>
11. </soap:Envelope>
Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman *before* any policies are executed.
We'll actually keep reading until we find <soap:Body> in the request body.
We'll throw out everything before line #6 from our in-memory buffer, resulting in a
buffer with just line #6 (and any extra bytes after that based on our I/O chunk size).
The policies will be executed, which may result in soap headers being added, modified, or
removed. If all policies pass, then we proxy the request to the back-end. Normally the
HTTP connection would simply send all bytes from the HTTP request as-is. Instead,
we'll need to *generate* new content for lines 1-5, with the newly modified soap
headers. Once the generated content is sent, then we send the contents of the in-memory
buffer (which contains line #6+ any additional bytes). After that, we proxy the remaining
bytes from the HTTP request as-is.
This may be starting to take shape. :)
Additional thoughts?
-Eric
PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for manipulating SOAP headers,
rather than re-use the existing HTTP headers policy.
On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to make life slightly
> more complicated, will the headers policy be updated to allow add/remove
> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
>
> ~ keith
>
>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
>>
>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will *always* look for
a
>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap envelope is
>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error will be thrown.
>>
>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the HTTP
>> request until we find "<soap:Body>". We'll extract the
<soap:Header>
>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll obviously keep the data
>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done, we'll include the
>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding type in some sort
>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
>>
>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request as normal,
>> executing the policy chain, then processing the request body, etc. The
>> entire request payload will still be processed (remember that we saved
>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
>>
>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look identical
>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy context.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several validators
>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
>>> function.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Benjamin
>>>
>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
>>>
>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM Element
>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be best.
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>>>
>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good
>>> example of
>>> this in practice.
>>>
>>> ~ keith
>>>
>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as
>>> well. I'm
>>> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
>>>
>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could
>>> make the
>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to provide
>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale
>>> at this
>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be
>>> very useful.
>>>
>>> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should
>>> be extracted
>>> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
>>>
>>> * The encoding style
>>> * All SOAP headers
>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
>>> * ???
>>>
>>> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take the
>>> following
>>> form:
>>>
>>> <HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>>>
>>> It can also have the optional "actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
>>> attributes.
>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not
>>> sure if the
>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more
>>> complex than the
>>> above?
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request
>>> body, which is
>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a
>>> temporary buffer. I then
>>> process the data (authentication) and based on the
>>> results proceed with
>>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end()
>>> method of the
>>> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my
>>> temporary buffer
>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward
>>> the request to
>>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky
>>> way of doing
>>> this.
>>>
>>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But
>>> I would need a
>>> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP
>>> headers in the
>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>>>
>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>>>
>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I
>>> will do my best
>>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the apiman-dev
>>> mailing list so
>>> others can chime in.
>>>
>>> First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds
>>> great - we haven't
>>> focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get
>>> much more demand
>>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said,
>>> better SOAP
>>> support is certainly on the radar. When that
>>> happens, my hope is
>>> that processing the envelope might be a core part of
>>> the gateway and
>>> so implementing policies that use information in
>>> there will be
>>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the
>>> genesis of some of
>>> that work!
>>>
>>> To your question - without core changes to apiman,
>>> the approach you
>>> *need* to take is to have your policy implement
>>> IDataPolicy. I
>>> believe you may have already tried that, and
>>> observed that you
>>> cannot send proper policy failures from that
>>> method. You are right
>>> - that's something we will need to fix! I think you
>>> should be able
>>> to throw a runtime exception from the
>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>>> method if you detect an error. However, this is a
>>> little bit hacky!
>>>
>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we
>>> perhaps work
>>> together to bake SOAP support directly into the core
>>> of apiman, such
>>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the
>>> policy chain is
>>> executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP
>>> headers as a
>>> proper Map<> stored either in the context or on the
>>> ApiRequest.
>>> This would allow you to properly implement most
>>> (all?) WS-*
>>> protocols as proper apiman policies in the
>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
>>> method.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I first thought to write this question as an
>>> issue on Github,
>>> but it
>>> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>>>
>>> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that
>>> reads the body and
>>> check
>>> the UsernameToken security header. This works
>>> OK, but now I've
>>> hit a wall.
>>>
>>> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest
>>> object and read the
>>> body from
>>> the ServletInputStream of the request. The
>>> problem I'm facing
>>> now is
>>> that the input stream was read and it can't be
>>> reset back to it's
>>> initial state.
>>>
>>> I was also trying to implement the same logic
>>> in the
>>> requestDataHandler
>>> method, but I don't know if it is even possible
>>> to send a failure
>>> message to the request chain from there.
>>>
>>> Any suggesstions ?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Benjamin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lp, Benjamin
>
7:42 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
If I understand you correctly Eric, only the soap:Body part will be
forwarded to the registered API?
What if the API still needs to receive the soap:Header part?
2016-03-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com>:
Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName and
DOM-aware, so
that namespace-qualified headers can be added and appropriate namespace
definitions can be added to the DOM if required. Of course you already
know all this, but pointing it out makes me feel useful.
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to inject the headers into
the request than it is to inject HTTP request headers, obviously. But not
impossible. We'd need to be aware of the change to any Content-Length that
may be set.
>
> This makes the implementation slightly more complicated, because I think
the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter (it will need to send the
<soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header> sections first, then just stream the
remaining request body as-is.
>
> So perhaps what we have is this:
>
> 1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
> 2. <soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> 3. <soap:Header>
> 4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
> 5. </soap:Header>
> 6. <soap:Body>
> 7. <m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
> 8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
> 9. </m:GetStockPrice>
> 10. </soap:Body>
> 11. </soap:Envelope>
>
> Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman *before* any policies are
executed. We'll actually keep reading until we find <soap:Body> in the
request body. We'll throw out everything before line #6 from our in-memory
buffer, resulting in a buffer with just line #6 (and any extra bytes after
that based on our I/O chunk size).
>
> The policies will be executed, which may result in soap headers being
added, modified, or removed. If all policies pass, then we proxy the
request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP connection would simply send
all bytes from the HTTP request as-is. Instead, we'll need to *generate*
new content for lines 1-5, with the newly modified soap headers. Once the
generated content is sent, then we send the contents of the in-memory
buffer (which contains line #6+ any additional bytes). After that, we
proxy the remaining bytes from the HTTP request as-is.
>
> This may be starting to take shape. :)
>
> Additional thoughts?
>
> -Eric
>
> PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for manipulating SOAP
headers, rather than re-use the existing HTTP headers policy.
>
> On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
>> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to make life slightly
>> more complicated, will the headers policy be updated to allow add/remove
>> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
>>
>> ~ keith
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
>>>
>>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will *always* look
for a
>>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap envelope is
>>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error will be thrown.
>>>
>>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the HTTP
>>> request until we find "<soap:Body>". We'll extract the
<soap:Header>
>>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll obviously keep the data
>>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done, we'll include the
>>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding type in some sort
>>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
>>>
>>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request as normal,
>>> executing the policy chain, then processing the request body, etc. The
>>> entire request payload will still be processed (remember that we saved
>>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
>>>
>>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look identical
>>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy context.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several validators
>>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader)
to
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM Element
>>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be best.
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good
>>>> example of
>>>> this in practice.
>>>>
>>>> ~ keith
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>>>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius approach as
>>>> well. I'm
>>>> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
>>>>
>>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that I could
>>>> make the
>>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing to
provide
>>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is quite stale
>>>> at this
>>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be
>>>> very useful.
>>>>
>>>> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope should
>>>> be extracted
>>>> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
>>>>
>>>> * The encoding style
>>>> * All SOAP headers
>>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
>>>> * ???
>>>>
>>>> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen take
the
>>>> following
>>>> form:
>>>>
>>>> <HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>>>>
>>>> It can also have the optional "actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
>>>> attributes.
>>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so I'm not
>>>> sure if the
>>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more
>>>> complex than the
>>>> above?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the request
>>>> body, which is
>>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a
>>>> temporary buffer. I then
>>>> process the data (authentication) and based on the
>>>> results proceed with
>>>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in the end()
>>>> method of the
>>>> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my
>>>> temporary buffer
>>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can forward
>>>> the request to
>>>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still a hacky
>>>> way of doing
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP support. But
>>>> I would need a
>>>> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP
>>>> headers in the
>>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>>>>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent question. I
>>>> will do my best
>>>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the
apiman-dev
>>>> mailing list so
>>>> others can chime in.
>>>>
>>>> First let me say that a WS-Security policy sounds
>>>> great - we haven't
>>>> focused much on the WS-* protocols because we get
>>>> much more demand
>>>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That said,
>>>> better SOAP
>>>> support is certainly on the radar. When that
>>>> happens, my hope is
>>>> that processing the envelope might be a core part of
>>>> the gateway and
>>>> so implementing policies that use information in
>>>> there will be
>>>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the
>>>> genesis of some of
>>>> that work!
>>>>
>>>> To your question - without core changes to apiman,
>>>> the approach you
>>>> *need* to take is to have your policy implement
>>>> IDataPolicy. I
>>>> believe you may have already tried that, and
>>>> observed that you
>>>> cannot send proper policy failures from that
>>>> method. You are right
>>>> - that's something we will need to fix! I think
you
>>>> should be able
>>>> to throw a runtime exception from the
>>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>>>> method if you detect an error. However, this is a
>>>> little bit hacky!
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that we
>>>> perhaps work
>>>> together to bake SOAP support directly into the core
>>>> of apiman, such
>>>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed *before* the
>>>> policy chain is
>>>> executed. We could expose, for example, the SOAP
>>>> headers as a
>>>> proper Map<> stored either in the context or on
the
>>>> ApiRequest.
>>>> This would allow you to properly implement most
>>>> (all?) WS-*
>>>> protocols as proper apiman policies in the
>>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
>>>> method.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I first thought to write this question as an
>>>> issue on Github,
>>>> but it
>>>> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>>>>
>>>> I am making a custom WS Security policy, that
>>>> reads the body and
>>>> check
>>>> the UsernameToken security header. This works
>>>> OK, but now I've
>>>> hit a wall.
>>>>
>>>> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest
>>>> object and read the
>>>> body from
>>>> the ServletInputStream of the request. The
>>>> problem I'm facing
>>>> now is
>>>> that the input stream was read and it can't
be
>>>> reset back to it's
>>>> initial state.
>>>>
>>>> I was also trying to implement the same logic
>>>> in the
>>>> requestDataHandler
>>>> method, but I don't know if it is even
possible
>>>> to send a failure
>>>> message to the request chain from there.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggesstions ?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>
--
Lp, Benjamin
8:18 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
My plan was unclear! Let's go with another example:
Step 1 - the Gateway receives the following HTTP request:
----
POST /apiman-gateway/MyOrg/soap-api/2.7 HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
X-API-Key: API-KEY-FOR-ACTIVE-CLIENT
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns2:Header2 xmlns:ns2="uri:ns2">bar</ns2:Header2>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
We'll parse the first part of the envelope so that we can read the
headers and make them available to any policies. After that's done,
we'll invoke the policy chain as per normal. However, because it's a
SOAP api, there will exist a SOAPRequestInfo object in the policy
context. So policies can read and/or modify the soap information. This
class might look something like this:
public class SOAPRequestInfo {
private String action;
private String encoding;
private Map<QName, SOAPHeader> headers;
}
This allows interested policies (like your ws-security) policy to have
easy access to all the soap related stuff. It also allows you to alter
these things. Including adding/removing/modifying the SOAP headers.
So let's assume that we have a policy which *adds* a SOAP header
(ns3:AddedHeader) and another policy which *removes* one (ns2:Header2).
The policy code might look like this:
SOAPRequestInfo soapInfo = context.getAttribute(
Constants.SOAP_INFO, (SOAPRequestInfo) null);
soapInfo.getHeaders().remove(new QName("uri:ns2", "Header2"));
soapInfo.getHeaders().put(
new QName("uri:ns3", "AddedHeader"),
createSoapHeader()
);
In that case, this is the HTTP request that will be sent/proxied to the
back-end API:
----
POST / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns3:AddedHeader xmlns:ns3="uri:ns3">bar</ns3:AddedHeader>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
Sound reasonable?
-Eric
On 3/29/2016 1:42 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
If I understand you correctly Eric, only the soap:Body part will be
forwarded to the registered API?
What if the API still needs to receive the soap:Header part?
2016-03-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com
<mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>>:
Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName and
DOM-aware, so that namespace-qualified headers can be added and
appropriate namespace definitions can be added to the DOM if
required. Of course you already know all this, but pointing it out
makes me feel useful.
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to inject the headers
into the request than it is to inject HTTP request headers,
obviously. But not impossible. We'd need to be aware of the change
to any Content-Length that may be set.
>
> This makes the implementation slightly more complicated, because
I think the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter (it will
need to send the <soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header> sections first,
then just stream the remaining request body as-is.
>
> So perhaps what we have is this:
>
> 1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
> 2. <soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> 3. <soap:Header>
> 4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
> 5. </soap:Header>
> 6. <soap:Body>
> 7. <m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
> 8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
> 9. </m:GetStockPrice>
> 10. </soap:Body>
> 11. </soap:Envelope>
>
> Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman *before* any
policies are executed. We'll actually keep reading until we find
<soap:Body> in the request body. We'll throw out everything before
line #6 from our in-memory buffer, resulting in a buffer with just
line #6 (and any extra bytes after that based on our I/O chunk size).
>
> The policies will be executed, which may result in soap headers
being added, modified, or removed. If all policies pass, then we
proxy the request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP connection
would simply send all bytes from the HTTP request as-is. Instead,
we'll need to *generate* new content for lines 1-5, with the newly
modified soap headers. Once the generated content is sent, then we
send the contents of the in-memory buffer (which contains line #6+
any additional bytes). After that, we proxy the remaining bytes
from the HTTP request as-is.
>
> This may be starting to take shape. :)
>
> Additional thoughts?
>
> -Eric
>
> PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for
manipulating SOAP headers, rather than re-use the existing HTTP
headers policy.
>
> On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
>> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to make life
slightly
>> more complicated, will the headers policy be updated to allow
add/remove
>> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
>>
>> ~ keith
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
>>>
>>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will *always*
look
for a
>>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap
envelope is
>>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error will be thrown.
>>>
>>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the HTTP
>>> request until we find "<soap:Body>". We'll extract
the
<soap:Header>
>>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll obviously keep
the data
>>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done, we'll
include the
>>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding type in some
sort
>>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
>>>
>>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request as
normal,
>>> executing the policy chain, then processing the request body,
etc. The
>>> entire request payload will still be processed (remember that
we saved
>>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
>>>
>>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look identical
>>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy
context.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several
validators
>>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements
(javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM
Element
>>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be
best.
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a good
>>>> example of
>>>> this in practice.
>>>>
>>>> ~ keith
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius
approach as
>>>> well. I'm
>>>> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it. :)
>>>>
>>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that
I could
>>>> make the
>>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing
to provide
>>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is
quite stale
>>>> at this
>>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes would be
>>>> very useful.
>>>>
>>>> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope
should
>>>> be extracted
>>>> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates are:
>>>>
>>>> * The encoding style
>>>> * All SOAP headers
>>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
>>>> * ???
>>>>
>>>> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've seen
take the
>>>> following
>>>> form:
>>>>
>>>> <HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>>>>
>>>> It can also have the optional "actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
>>>> attributes.
>>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so
I'm not
>>>> sure if the
>>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be more
>>>> complex than the
>>>> above?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the
request
>>>> body, which is
>>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a
>>>> temporary buffer. I then
>>>> process the data (authentication) and based on the
>>>> results proceed with
>>>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in
the end()
>>>> method of the
>>>> requestDataHandler method I write the contents of my
>>>> temporary buffer
>>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can
forward
>>>> the request to
>>>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still
a hacky
>>>> way of doing
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP
support. But
>>>> I would need a
>>>> few pointers where to start. The way of storing SOAP
>>>> headers in the
>>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent
question. I
>>>> will do my best
>>>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the
apiman-dev
>>>> mailing list so
>>>> others can chime in.
>>>>
>>>> First let me say that a WS-Security policy
sounds
>>>> great - we haven't
>>>> focused much on the WS-* protocols because
we get
>>>> much more demand
>>>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That
said,
>>>> better SOAP
>>>> support is certainly on the radar. When that
>>>> happens, my hope is
>>>> that processing the envelope might be a core
part of
>>>> the gateway and
>>>> so implementing policies that use information in
>>>> there will be
>>>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be the
>>>> genesis of some of
>>>> that work!
>>>>
>>>> To your question - without core changes to
apiman,
>>>> the approach you
>>>> *need* to take is to have your policy implement
>>>> IDataPolicy. I
>>>> believe you may have already tried that, and
>>>> observed that you
>>>> cannot send proper policy failures from that
>>>> method. You are right
>>>> - that's something we will need to fix! I
think you
>>>> should be able
>>>> to throw a runtime exception from the
>>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>>>> method if you detect an error. However,
this is a
>>>> little bit hacky!
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it) that
we
>>>> perhaps work
>>>> together to bake SOAP support directly into
the core
>>>> of apiman, such
>>>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed
*before* the
>>>> policy chain is
>>>> executed. We could expose, for example, the
SOAP
>>>> headers as a
>>>> proper Map<> stored either in the context
or
on the
>>>> ApiRequest.
>>>> This would allow you to properly implement most
>>>> (all?) WS-*
>>>> protocols as proper apiman policies in the
>>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
>>>> method.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I first thought to write this question as an
>>>> issue on Github,
>>>> but it
>>>> seemed better to write you a direct email.
>>>>
>>>> I am making a custom WS Security policy,
that
>>>> reads the body and
>>>> check
>>>> the UsernameToken security header. This
works
>>>> OK, but now I've
>>>> hit a wall.
>>>>
>>>> In the doApply method I get the rawRequest
>>>> object and read the
>>>> body from
>>>> the ServletInputStream of the request. The
>>>> problem I'm facing
>>>> now is
>>>> that the input stream was read and it
can't be
>>>> reset back to it's
>>>> initial state.
>>>>
>>>> I was also trying to implement the same
logic
>>>> in the
>>>> requestDataHandler
>>>> method, but I don't know if it is even
possible
>>>> to send a failure
>>>> message to the request chain from there.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggesstions ?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>
--
Lp, Benjamin
8:29 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
OK, now I understand what you meant.
I believe this would be a reasonable solution :)
2016-03-29 20:18 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com>:
My plan was unclear! Let's go with another example:
Step 1 - the Gateway receives the following HTTP request:
----
POST /apiman-gateway/MyOrg/soap-api/2.7 HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
X-API-Key: API-KEY-FOR-ACTIVE-CLIENT
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns2:Header2 xmlns:ns2="uri:ns2">bar</ns2:Header2>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
We'll parse the first part of the envelope so that we can read the headers
and make them available to any policies. After that's done, we'll invoke
the policy chain as per normal. However, because it's a SOAP api, there
will exist a SOAPRequestInfo object in the policy context. So policies can
read and/or modify the soap information. This class might look something
like this:
public class SOAPRequestInfo {
private String action;
private String encoding;
private Map<QName, SOAPHeader> headers;
}
This allows interested policies (like your ws-security) policy to have
easy access to all the soap related stuff. It also allows you to alter
these things. Including adding/removing/modifying the SOAP headers.
So let's assume that we have a policy which *adds* a SOAP header
(ns3:AddedHeader) and another policy which *removes* one (ns2:Header2).
The policy code might look like this:
SOAPRequestInfo soapInfo = context.getAttribute(
Constants.SOAP_INFO, (SOAPRequestInfo) null);
soapInfo.getHeaders().remove(new QName("uri:ns2", "Header2"));
soapInfo.getHeaders().put(
new QName("uri:ns3", "AddedHeader"),
createSoapHeader()
);
In that case, this is the HTTP request that will be sent/proxied to the
back-end API:
----
POST / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns3:AddedHeader xmlns:ns3="uri:ns3">bar</ns3:AddedHeader>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
Sound reasonable?
-Eric
On 3/29/2016 1:42 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> If I understand you correctly Eric, only the soap:Body part will be
> forwarded to the registered API?
> What if the API still needs to receive the soap:Header part?
>
> 2016-03-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>>:
>
> Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName and
> DOM-aware, so that namespace-qualified headers can be added and
> appropriate namespace definitions can be added to the DOM if
> required. Of course you already know all this, but pointing it out
> makes me feel useful.
>
> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to inject the headers
> into the request than it is to inject HTTP request headers,
> obviously. But not impossible. We'd need to be aware of the change
> to any Content-Length that may be set.
> >
> > This makes the implementation slightly more complicated, because
> I think the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter (it will
> need to send the <soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header> sections first,
> then just stream the remaining request body as-is.
> >
> > So perhaps what we have is this:
> >
> > 1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > 2. <soap:Envelope
> xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> > 3. <soap:Header>
> > 4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
> > 5. </soap:Header>
> > 6. <soap:Body>
> > 7. <m:GetStockPrice
> xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
> > 8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
> > 9. </m:GetStockPrice>
> > 10. </soap:Body>
> > 11. </soap:Envelope>
> >
> > Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman *before* any
> policies are executed. We'll actually keep reading until we find
> <soap:Body> in the request body. We'll throw out everything before
> line #6 from our in-memory buffer, resulting in a buffer with just
> line #6 (and any extra bytes after that based on our I/O chunk size).
> >
> > The policies will be executed, which may result in soap headers
> being added, modified, or removed. If all policies pass, then we
> proxy the request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP connection
> would simply send all bytes from the HTTP request as-is. Instead,
> we'll need to *generate* new content for lines 1-5, with the newly
> modified soap headers. Once the generated content is sent, then we
> send the contents of the in-memory buffer (which contains line #6+
> any additional bytes). After that, we proxy the remaining bytes
> from the HTTP request as-is.
> >
> > This may be starting to take shape. :)
> >
> > Additional thoughts?
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> > PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for
> manipulating SOAP headers, rather than re-use the existing HTTP
> headers policy.
> >
> > On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
> >> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to make life
> slightly
> >> more complicated, will the headers policy be updated to allow
> add/remove
> >> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
> >>
> >> ~ keith
> >>
> >>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> >>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
> >>>
> >>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will
*always* look
> for a
> >>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap
> envelope is
> >>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error will be thrown.
> >>>
> >>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the HTTP
> >>> request until we find "<soap:Body>". We'll
extract the
> <soap:Header>
> >>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll obviously keep
> the data
> >>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done, we'll
> include the
> >>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding type in some
> sort
> >>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request as
> normal,
> >>> executing the policy chain, then processing the request body,
> etc. The
> >>> entire request payload will still be processed (remember that
> we saved
> >>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
> >>>
> >>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look
> identical
> >>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy
> context.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> -Eric
> >>>
> >>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> >>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several
> validators
> >>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements
> (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
> >>>> function.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Benjamin
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as DOM
> Element
> >>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would be
> best.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Eric
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a
good
> >>>> example of
> >>>> this in practice.
> >>>>
> >>>> ~ keith
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
> >>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a genius
> approach as
> >>>> well. I'm
> >>>> actually a little bummed I didn't think of it.
:)
> >>>>
> >>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking that
> I could
> >>>> make the
> >>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would be willing
> to provide
> >>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is
> quite stale
> >>>> at this
> >>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes
would
> be
> >>>> very useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP envelope
> should
> >>>> be extracted
> >>>> prior to calling the policy chain? Some candidates
> are:
> >>>>
> >>>> * The encoding style
> >>>> * All SOAP headers
> >>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP header)
> >>>> * ???
> >>>>
> >>>> For the soap headers, all of the examples I've
seen
> take the
> >>>> following
> >>>> form:
> >>>>
> >>>> <HeaderName
> xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
> >>>>
> >>>> It can also have the optional "actor" or
> "mustUnderstand"
> >>>> attributes.
> >>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though, so
> I'm not
> >>>> sure if the
> >>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be
more
> >>>> complex than the
> >>>> above?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Eric
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing the
> request
> >>>> body, which is
> >>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in a
> >>>> temporary buffer. I then
> >>>> process the data (authentication) and based on
the
> >>>> results proceed with
> >>>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then in
> the end()
> >>>> method of the
> >>>> requestDataHandler method I write the contents
of
> my
> >>>> temporary buffer
> >>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I can
> forward
> >>>> the request to
> >>>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is still
> a hacky
> >>>> way of doing
> >>>> this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP
> support. But
> >>>> I would need a
> >>>> few pointers where to start. The way of storing
> SOAP
> >>>> headers in the
> >>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
> >>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent
> question. I
> >>>> will do my best
> >>>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing the
> apiman-dev
> >>>> mailing list so
> >>>> others can chime in.
> >>>>
> >>>> First let me say that a WS-Security policy
> sounds
> >>>> great - we haven't
> >>>> focused much on the WS-* protocols because
> we get
> >>>> much more demand
> >>>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs. That
> said,
> >>>> better SOAP
> >>>> support is certainly on the radar. When
that
> >>>> happens, my hope is
> >>>> that processing the envelope might be a core
> part of
> >>>> the gateway and
> >>>> so implementing policies that use
information
> in
> >>>> there will be
> >>>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can be
> the
> >>>> genesis of some of
> >>>> that work!
> >>>>
> >>>> To your question - without core changes to
> apiman,
> >>>> the approach you
> >>>> *need* to take is to have your policy
> implement
> >>>> IDataPolicy. I
> >>>> believe you may have already tried that, and
> >>>> observed that you
> >>>> cannot send proper policy failures from that
> >>>> method. You are right
> >>>> - that's something we will need to fix!
I
> think you
> >>>> should be able
> >>>> to throw a runtime exception from the
> >>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
> >>>> method if you detect an error. However,
> this is a
> >>>> little bit hacky!
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for it)
that
> we
> >>>> perhaps work
> >>>> together to bake SOAP support directly into
> the core
> >>>> of apiman, such
> >>>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed
> *before* the
> >>>> policy chain is
> >>>> executed. We could expose, for example, the
> SOAP
> >>>> headers as a
> >>>> proper Map<> stored either in the
context or
> on the
> >>>> ApiRequest.
> >>>> This would allow you to properly implement
> most
> >>>> (all?) WS-*
> >>>> protocols as proper apiman policies in the
> >>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
> >>>> method.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Eric
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Greetings,
> >>>>
> >>>> I first thought to write this question
as
> an
> >>>> issue on Github,
> >>>> but it
> >>>> seemed better to write you a direct
email.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am making a custom WS Security policy,
> that
> >>>> reads the body and
> >>>> check
> >>>> the UsernameToken security header. This
> works
> >>>> OK, but now I've
> >>>> hit a wall.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the doApply method I get the
rawRequest
> >>>> object and read the
> >>>> body from
> >>>> the ServletInputStream of the request.
The
> >>>> problem I'm facing
> >>>> now is
> >>>> that the input stream was read and it
> can't be
> >>>> reset back to it's
> >>>> initial state.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was also trying to implement the same
> logic
> >>>> in the
> >>>> requestDataHandler
> >>>> method, but I don't know if it is
even
> possible
> >>>> to send a failure
> >>>> message to the request chain from there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any suggesstions ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Benjamin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Lp, Benjamin
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
> >>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >>
> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Lp, Benjamin
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lp, Benjamin
>
--
Lp, Benjamin
10:26 a.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Just one more thing ...
If a SOAP API is published on Apiman and you request the WSDL by using the
gateway endpoint URL, you get the original WSDL - address is pointing to
the real endpoint URL and not the gateway endpoint URL.
I have solved this temporarily by adding URL rewrite policies to all SOAP
APIs, which replace the real endpoint URL with the gateway endpoint URL.
I guess it would be best if this policy was handled by the gateway
internally so that you wouldn't have to worry by adding a correct policy to
the API configuration.
2016-03-29 20:29 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Kastelic <kastelic.benjamin(a)gmail.com>:
OK, now I understand what you meant.
I believe this would be a reasonable solution :)
2016-03-29 20:18 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com>:
> My plan was unclear! Let's go with another example:
>
> Step 1 - the Gateway receives the following HTTP request:
>
> ----
> POST /apiman-gateway/MyOrg/soap-api/2.7 HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.example.org
> Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
> X-API-Key: API-KEY-FOR-ACTIVE-CLIENT
> SOAPAction: ExampleAction
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> <soap:Header>
> <ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
> <ns2:Header2 xmlns:ns2="uri:ns2">bar</ns2:Header2>
> </soap:Header>
> <soap:Body>
> <m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
> <m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
> </m:GetStockPrice>
> </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> ----
>
> We'll parse the first part of the envelope so that we can read the
> headers and make them available to any policies. After that's done, we'll
> invoke the policy chain as per normal. However, because it's a SOAP api,
> there will exist a SOAPRequestInfo object in the policy context. So
> policies can read and/or modify the soap information. This class might
> look something like this:
>
> public class SOAPRequestInfo {
> private String action;
> private String encoding;
> private Map<QName, SOAPHeader> headers;
> }
>
> This allows interested policies (like your ws-security) policy to have
> easy access to all the soap related stuff. It also allows you to alter
> these things. Including adding/removing/modifying the SOAP headers.
>
> So let's assume that we have a policy which *adds* a SOAP header
> (ns3:AddedHeader) and another policy which *removes* one (ns2:Header2).
> The policy code might look like this:
>
> SOAPRequestInfo soapInfo = context.getAttribute(
> Constants.SOAP_INFO, (SOAPRequestInfo) null);
> soapInfo.getHeaders().remove(new QName("uri:ns2", "Header2"));
> soapInfo.getHeaders().put(
> new QName("uri:ns3", "AddedHeader"),
> createSoapHeader()
> );
>
>
> In that case, this is the HTTP request that will be sent/proxied to the
> back-end API:
>
> ----
> POST / HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.example.org
> Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
> SOAPAction: ExampleAction
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> <soap:Header>
> <ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
> <ns3:AddedHeader xmlns:ns3="uri:ns3">bar</ns3:AddedHeader>
> </soap:Header>
> <soap:Body>
> <m:GetStockPrice xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
> <m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
> </m:GetStockPrice>
> </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> ----
>
> Sound reasonable?
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On 3/29/2016 1:42 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>
>> If I understand you correctly Eric, only the soap:Body part will be
>> forwarded to the registered API?
>> What if the API still needs to receive the soap:Header part?
>>
>> 2016-03-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>>:
>>
>> Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName and
>> DOM-aware, so that namespace-qualified headers can be added and
>> appropriate namespace definitions can be added to the DOM if
>> required. Of course you already know all this, but pointing it out
>> makes me feel useful.
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann
>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
wrote:
>> >
>> > That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to inject the
headers
>> into the request than it is to inject HTTP request headers,
>> obviously. But not impossible. We'd need to be aware of the change
>> to any Content-Length that may be set.
>> >
>> > This makes the implementation slightly more complicated, because
>> I think the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter (it will
>> need to send the <soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header> sections
first,
>> then just stream the remaining request body as-is.
>> >
>> > So perhaps what we have is this:
>> >
>> > 1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
>> > 2. <soap:Envelope
>> xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
>> > 3. <soap:Header>
>> > 4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
>> > 5. </soap:Header>
>> > 6. <soap:Body>
>> > 7. <m:GetStockPrice
>> xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
>> > 8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
>> > 9. </m:GetStockPrice>
>> > 10. </soap:Body>
>> > 11. </soap:Envelope>
>> >
>> > Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman *before* any
>> policies are executed. We'll actually keep reading until we find
>> <soap:Body> in the request body. We'll throw out everything
before
>> line #6 from our in-memory buffer, resulting in a buffer with just
>> line #6 (and any extra bytes after that based on our I/O chunk size).
>> >
>> > The policies will be executed, which may result in soap headers
>> being added, modified, or removed. If all policies pass, then we
>> proxy the request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP connection
>> would simply send all bytes from the HTTP request as-is. Instead,
>> we'll need to *generate* new content for lines 1-5, with the newly
>> modified soap headers. Once the generated content is sent, then we
>> send the contents of the in-memory buffer (which contains line #6+
>> any additional bytes). After that, we proxy the remaining bytes
>> from the HTTP request as-is.
>> >
>> > This may be starting to take shape. :)
>> >
>> > Additional thoughts?
>> >
>> > -Eric
>> >
>> > PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for
>> manipulating SOAP headers, rather than re-use the existing HTTP
>> headers policy.
>> >
>> > On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
>> >> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to make life
>> slightly
>> >> more complicated, will the headers policy be updated to allow
>> add/remove
>> >> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
>> >>
>> >> ~ keith
>> >>
>> >>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann
>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> >>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
>> >>>
>> >>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we will
*always* look
>> for a
>> >>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or no soap
>> envelope is
>> >>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error will be
thrown.
>> >>>
>> >>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the body of the
>> HTTP
>> >>> request until we find "<soap:Body>". We'll
extract the
>> <soap:Header>
>> >>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll obviously
keep
>> the data
>> >>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done, we'll
>> include the
>> >>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding type in
some
>> sort
>> >>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy context.
>> >>>
>> >>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the request
as
>> normal,
>> >>> executing the policy chain, then processing the request body,
>> etc. The
>> >>> entire request payload will still be processed (remember that
>> we saved
>> >>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
>> >>>
>> >>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything will look
>> identical
>> >>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in the policy
>> context.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> -Eric
>> >>>
>> >>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>> >>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since several
>> validators
>> >>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements
>> (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
>> >>>> function.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best regards,
>> >>>> Benjamin
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann
>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers available as
DOM
>> Element
>> >>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based lookup) would
be
>> best.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Eric
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types. WS-Security is a
good
>> >>>> example of
>> >>>> this in practice.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ~ keith
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
>> >>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a
genius
>> approach as
>> >>>> well. I'm
>> >>>> actually a little bummed I didn't think of
it. :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was thinking
that
>> I could
>> >>>> make the
>> >>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would be
willing
>> to provide
>> >>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP expertise is
>> quite stale
>> >>>> at this
>> >>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these changes
>> would be
>> >>>> very useful.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To start off with, what pieces of the SOAP
envelope
>> should
>> >>>> be extracted
>> >>>> prior to calling the policy chain? Some
candidates
>> are:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * The encoding style
>> >>>> * All SOAP headers
>> >>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an HTTP
header)
>> >>>> * ???
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For the soap headers, all of the examples
I've seen
>> take the
>> >>>> following
>> >>>> form:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <HeaderName
>> xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It can also have the optional "actor"
or
>> "mustUnderstand"
>> >>>> attributes.
>> >>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax though,
so
>> I'm not
>> >>>> sure if the
>> >>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can headers be
more
>> >>>> complex than the
>> >>>> above?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Eric
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I temporarily solved the problem by storing
the
>> request
>> >>>> body, which is
>> >>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest object, in
a
>> >>>> temporary buffer. I then
>> >>>> process the data (authentication) and based
on
>> the
>> >>>> results proceed with
>> >>>> the policy chain or report a failure. Then
in
>> the end()
>> >>>> method of the
>> >>>> requestDataHandler method I write the
contents
>> of my
>> >>>> temporary buffer
>> >>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer). That way I
can
>> forward
>> >>>> the request to
>> >>>> then ext policy in the chain. But this is
still
>> a hacky
>> >>>> way of doing
>> >>>> this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would be glad to help with extending SOAP
>> support. But
>> >>>> I would need a
>> >>>> few pointers where to start. The way of
storing
>> SOAP
>> >>>> headers in the
>> >>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good idea.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric Wittmann
>> >>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the excellent
>> question. I
>> >>>> will do my best
>> >>>> to answer and note that I am CC'ing
the
>> apiman-dev
>> >>>> mailing list so
>> >>>> others can chime in.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> First let me say that a WS-Security
policy
>> sounds
>> >>>> great - we haven't
>> >>>> focused much on the WS-* protocols
because
>> we get
>> >>>> much more demand
>> >>>> for managing REST APIs than SOAP APIs.
That
>> said,
>> >>>> better SOAP
>> >>>> support is certainly on the radar. When
that
>> >>>> happens, my hope is
>> >>>> that processing the envelope might be a
core
>> part of
>> >>>> the gateway and
>> >>>> so implementing policies that use
>> information in
>> >>>> there will be
>> >>>> easier. Perhaps your implementation can
be
>> the
>> >>>> genesis of some of
>> >>>> that work!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To your question - without core changes
to
>> apiman,
>> >>>> the approach you
>> >>>> *need* to take is to have your policy
>> implement
>> >>>> IDataPolicy. I
>> >>>> believe you may have already tried that,
and
>> >>>> observed that you
>> >>>> cannot send proper policy failures from
that
>> >>>> method. You are right
>> >>>> - that's something we will need to
fix! I
>> think you
>> >>>> should be able
>> >>>> to throw a runtime exception from the
>> >>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>> >>>> method if you detect an error. However,
>> this is a
>> >>>> little bit hacky!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're up for
it)
>> that we
>> >>>> perhaps work
>> >>>> together to bake SOAP support directly
into
>> the core
>> >>>> of apiman, such
>> >>>> that the SOAP envelope is read/parsed
>> *before* the
>> >>>> policy chain is
>> >>>> executed. We could expose, for example,
the
>> SOAP
>> >>>> headers as a
>> >>>> proper Map<> stored either in the
context or
>> on the
>> >>>> ApiRequest.
>> >>>> This would allow you to properly
implement
>> most
>> >>>> (all?) WS-*
>> >>>> protocols as proper apiman policies in
the
>> >>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
>> >>>> method.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Eric
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin Kastelic
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Greetings,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I first thought to write this
question
>> as an
>> >>>> issue on Github,
>> >>>> but it
>> >>>> seemed better to write you a direct
>> email.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am making a custom WS Security
policy,
>> that
>> >>>> reads the body and
>> >>>> check
>> >>>> the UsernameToken security header.
This
>> works
>> >>>> OK, but now I've
>> >>>> hit a wall.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the doApply method I get the
>> rawRequest
>> >>>> object and read the
>> >>>> body from
>> >>>> the ServletInputStream of the
request.
>> The
>> >>>> problem I'm facing
>> >>>> now is
>> >>>> that the input stream was read and
it
>> can't be
>> >>>> reset back to it's
>> >>>> initial state.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was also trying to implement the
same
>> logic
>> >>>> in the
>> >>>> requestDataHandler
>> >>>> method, but I don't know if it is
even
>> possible
>> >>>> to send a failure
>> >>>> message to the request chain from
there.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Any suggesstions ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best regards,
>> >>>> Benjamin
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Lp, Benjamin
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>> >>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:
>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>>
>> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
>> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Lp, Benjamin
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lp, Benjamin
>>
>
--
Lp, Benjamin
--
Lp, Benjamin
3:59 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Thanks for the feedback - I'll give this some thought. I think this
suggestion does make sense - but I'm also glad that the url re-writing
policy solved the issue. :)
We'll have a similar issue with swagger based REST apis, so baking it
into the gateway probably makes sense.
-Eric
On 3/30/2016 4:26 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Just one more thing ...
If a SOAP API is published on Apiman and you request the WSDL by using
the gateway endpoint URL, you get the original WSDL - address is
pointing to the real endpoint URL and not the gateway endpoint URL.
I have solved this temporarily by adding URL rewrite policies to all
SOAP APIs, which replace the real endpoint URL with the gateway endpoint
URL.
I guess it would be best if this policy was handled by the gateway
internally so that you wouldn't have to worry by adding a correct policy
to the API configuration.
2016-03-29 20:29 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Kastelic
<kastelic.benjamin(a)gmail.com <mailto:kastelic.benjamin@gmail.com>>:
OK, now I understand what you meant.
I believe this would be a reasonable solution :)
2016-03-29 20:18 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
My plan was unclear! Let's go with another example:
Step 1 - the Gateway receives the following HTTP request:
----
POST /apiman-gateway/MyOrg/soap-api/2.7 HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org <http://www.example.org>
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
X-API-Key: API-KEY-FOR-ACTIVE-CLIENT
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns2:Header2 xmlns:ns2="uri:ns2">bar</ns2:Header2>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
We'll parse the first part of the envelope so that we can read
the headers and make them available to any policies. After
that's done, we'll invoke the policy chain as per normal.
However, because it's a SOAP api, there will exist a
SOAPRequestInfo object in the policy context. So policies can
read and/or modify the soap information. This class might look
something like this:
public class SOAPRequestInfo {
private String action;
private String encoding;
private Map<QName, SOAPHeader> headers;
}
This allows interested policies (like your ws-security) policy
to have easy access to all the soap related stuff. It also
allows you to alter these things. Including
adding/removing/modifying the SOAP headers.
So let's assume that we have a policy which *adds* a SOAP header
(ns3:AddedHeader) and another policy which *removes* one
(ns2:Header2). The policy code might look like this:
SOAPRequestInfo soapInfo = context.getAttribute(
Constants.SOAP_INFO, (SOAPRequestInfo) null);
soapInfo.getHeaders().remove(new QName("uri:ns2",
"Header2"));
soapInfo.getHeaders().put(
new QName("uri:ns3", "AddedHeader"),
createSoapHeader()
);
In that case, this is the HTTP request that will be sent/proxied
to the back-end API:
----
POST / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org <http://www.example.org>
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns3:AddedHeader
xmlns:ns3="uri:ns3">bar</ns3:AddedHeader>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
Sound reasonable?
-Eric
On 3/29/2016 1:42 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
If I understand you correctly Eric, only the soap:Body part
will be
forwarded to the registered API?
What if the API still needs to receive the soap:Header part?
2016-03-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com
<mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>
<mailto:kbabo@redhat.com <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>>>:
Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName and
DOM-aware, so that namespace-qualified headers can be
added and
appropriate namespace definitions can be added to the
DOM if
required. Of course you already know all this, but
pointing it out
makes me feel useful.
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to
inject the headers
into the request than it is to inject HTTP request headers,
obviously. But not impossible. We'd need to be aware
of the change
to any Content-Length that may be set.
>
> This makes the implementation slightly more
complicated, because
I think the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter
(it will
need to send the <soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header>
sections first,
then just stream the remaining request body as-is.
>
> So perhaps what we have is this:
>
> 1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
> 2. <soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> 3. <soap:Header>
> 4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
> 5. </soap:Header>
> 6. <soap:Body>
> 7. <m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
> 8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
> 9. </m:GetStockPrice>
> 10. </soap:Body>
> 11. </soap:Envelope>
>
> Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman
*before* any
policies are executed. We'll actually keep reading
until we find
<soap:Body> in the request body. We'll throw out
everything before
line #6 from our in-memory buffer, resulting in a
buffer with just
line #6 (and any extra bytes after that based on our
I/O chunk size).
>
> The policies will be executed, which may result in
soap headers
being added, modified, or removed. If all policies
pass, then we
proxy the request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP
connection
would simply send all bytes from the HTTP request
as-is. Instead,
we'll need to *generate* new content for lines 1-5,
with the newly
modified soap headers. Once the generated content is
sent, then we
send the contents of the in-memory buffer (which
contains line #6+
any additional bytes). After that, we proxy the
remaining bytes
from the HTTP request as-is.
>
> This may be starting to take shape. :)
>
> Additional thoughts?
>
> -Eric
>
> PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for
manipulating SOAP headers, rather than re-use the
existing HTTP
headers policy.
>
> On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
>> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to
make life
slightly
>> more complicated, will the headers policy be
updated to allow
add/remove
>> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
>>
>> ~ keith
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
>>>
>>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we
will
*always* look
for a
>>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or
no soap
envelope is
>>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error
will be thrown.
>>>
>>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the
body of the HTTP
>>> request until we find "<soap:Body>".
We'll
extract the
<soap:Header>
>>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll
obviously keep
the data
>>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done,
we'll
include the
>>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding
type in some
sort
>>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy
context.
>>>
>>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the
request as
normal,
>>> executing the policy chain, then processing the
request body,
etc. The
>>> entire request payload will still be processed
(remember that
we saved
>>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
>>>
>>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything
will look identical
>>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in
the policy
context.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since
several
validators
>>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements
(javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers
available as DOM
Element
>>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based
lookup) would be
best.
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types.
WS-Security is a good
>>>> example of
>>>> this in practice.
>>>>
>>>> ~ keith
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a
genius
approach as
>>>> well. I'm
>>>> actually a little bummed I didn't think
of it. :)
>>>>
>>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was
thinking that
I could
>>>> make the
>>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would
be willing
to provide
>>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP
expertise is
quite stale
>>>> at this
>>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these
changes would be
>>>> very useful.
>>>>
>>>> To start off with, what pieces of the
SOAP envelope
should
>>>> be extracted
>>>> prior to calling the policy chain?
Some candidates are:
>>>>
>>>> * The encoding style
>>>> * All SOAP headers
>>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an
HTTP header)
>>>> * ???
>>>>
>>>> For the soap headers, all of the
examples I've seen
take the
>>>> following
>>>> form:
>>>>
>>>> <HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>>>>
>>>> It can also have the optional
"actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
>>>> attributes.
>>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax
though, so
I'm not
>>>> sure if the
>>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can
headers be more
>>>> complex than the
>>>> above?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I temporarily solved the problem by
storing the
request
>>>> body, which is
>>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest
object, in a
>>>> temporary buffer. I then
>>>> process the data (authentication)
and based on the
>>>> results proceed with
>>>> the policy chain or report a
failure. Then in
the end()
>>>> method of the
>>>> requestDataHandler method I write
the contents of my
>>>> temporary buffer
>>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer).
That way I can
forward
>>>> the request to
>>>> then ext policy in the chain. But
this is still
a hacky
>>>> way of doing
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> I would be glad to help with
extending SOAP
support. But
>>>> I would need a
>>>> few pointers where to start. The
way of storing SOAP
>>>> headers in the
>>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good
idea.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric
Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the
excellent
question. I
>>>> will do my best
>>>> to answer and note that I am
CC'ing the
apiman-dev
>>>> mailing list so
>>>> others can chime in.
>>>>
>>>> First let me say that a
WS-Security policy
sounds
>>>> great - we haven't
>>>> focused much on the WS-*
protocols because
we get
>>>> much more demand
>>>> for managing REST APIs than
SOAP APIs. That
said,
>>>> better SOAP
>>>> support is certainly on the
radar. When that
>>>> happens, my hope is
>>>> that processing the envelope
might be a core
part of
>>>> the gateway and
>>>> so implementing policies that
use information in
>>>> there will be
>>>> easier. Perhaps your
implementation can be the
>>>> genesis of some of
>>>> that work!
>>>>
>>>> To your question - without core
changes to
apiman,
>>>> the approach you
>>>> *need* to take is to have your
policy implement
>>>> IDataPolicy. I
>>>> believe you may have already
tried that, and
>>>> observed that you
>>>> cannot send proper policy
failures from that
>>>> method. You are right
>>>> - that's something we will need
to fix! I
think you
>>>> should be able
>>>> to throw a runtime exception
from the
>>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>>>> method if you detect an error.
However,
this is a
>>>> little bit hacky!
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're
up for it) that we
>>>> perhaps work
>>>> together to bake SOAP support
directly into
the core
>>>> of apiman, such
>>>> that the SOAP envelope is
read/parsed
*before* the
>>>> policy chain is
>>>> executed. We could expose, for
example, the
SOAP
>>>> headers as a
>>>> proper Map<> stored either in
the context or
on the
>>>> ApiRequest.
>>>> This would allow you to
properly implement most
>>>> (all?) WS-*
>>>> protocols as proper apiman
policies in the
>>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
>>>> method.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin
Kastelic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I first thought to write
this question as an
>>>> issue on Github,
>>>> but it
>>>> seemed better to write you
a direct email.
>>>>
>>>> I am making a custom WS
Security policy,
that
>>>> reads the body and
>>>> check
>>>> the UsernameToken security
header. This
works
>>>> OK, but now I've
>>>> hit a wall.
>>>>
>>>> In the doApply method I get
the rawRequest
>>>> object and read the
>>>> body from
>>>> the ServletInputStream of
the request. The
>>>> problem I'm facing
>>>> now is
>>>> that the input stream was
read and it
can't be
>>>> reset back to it's
>>>> initial state.
>>>>
>>>> I was also trying to
implement the same
logic
>>>> in the
>>>> requestDataHandler
>>>> method, but I don't know if
it is even
possible
>>>> to send a failure
>>>> message to the request
chain from there.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggesstions ?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>>
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>
--
Lp, Benjamin
--
Lp, Benjamin
--
Lp, Benjamin
4:02 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Note, here are a couple of JIRA issues created for these features in
case you're interested in tracking our progress on them:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/APIMAN-1072
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/APIMAN-1077
-Eric
On 3/30/2016 4:26 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
Just one more thing ...
If a SOAP API is published on Apiman and you request the WSDL by using
the gateway endpoint URL, you get the original WSDL - address is
pointing to the real endpoint URL and not the gateway endpoint URL.
I have solved this temporarily by adding URL rewrite policies to all
SOAP APIs, which replace the real endpoint URL with the gateway endpoint
URL.
I guess it would be best if this policy was handled by the gateway
internally so that you wouldn't have to worry by adding a correct policy
to the API configuration.
2016-03-29 20:29 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Kastelic
<kastelic.benjamin(a)gmail.com <mailto:kastelic.benjamin@gmail.com>>:
OK, now I understand what you meant.
I believe this would be a reasonable solution :)
2016-03-29 20:18 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
My plan was unclear! Let's go with another example:
Step 1 - the Gateway receives the following HTTP request:
----
POST /apiman-gateway/MyOrg/soap-api/2.7 HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org <http://www.example.org>
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
X-API-Key: API-KEY-FOR-ACTIVE-CLIENT
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns2:Header2 xmlns:ns2="uri:ns2">bar</ns2:Header2>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
We'll parse the first part of the envelope so that we can read
the headers and make them available to any policies. After
that's done, we'll invoke the policy chain as per normal.
However, because it's a SOAP api, there will exist a
SOAPRequestInfo object in the policy context. So policies can
read and/or modify the soap information. This class might look
something like this:
public class SOAPRequestInfo {
private String action;
private String encoding;
private Map<QName, SOAPHeader> headers;
}
This allows interested policies (like your ws-security) policy
to have easy access to all the soap related stuff. It also
allows you to alter these things. Including
adding/removing/modifying the SOAP headers.
So let's assume that we have a policy which *adds* a SOAP header
(ns3:AddedHeader) and another policy which *removes* one
(ns2:Header2). The policy code might look like this:
SOAPRequestInfo soapInfo = context.getAttribute(
Constants.SOAP_INFO, (SOAPRequestInfo) null);
soapInfo.getHeaders().remove(new QName("uri:ns2",
"Header2"));
soapInfo.getHeaders().put(
new QName("uri:ns3", "AddedHeader"),
createSoapHeader()
);
In that case, this is the HTTP request that will be sent/proxied
to the back-end API:
----
POST / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org <http://www.example.org>
Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
SOAPAction: ExampleAction
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<soap:Header>
<ns1:Header1 xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
<ns3:AddedHeader
xmlns:ns3="uri:ns3">bar</ns3:AddedHeader>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
<m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
</m:GetStockPrice>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
----
Sound reasonable?
-Eric
On 3/29/2016 1:42 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
If I understand you correctly Eric, only the soap:Body part
will be
forwarded to the registered API?
What if the API still needs to receive the soap:Header part?
2016-03-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com
<mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>
<mailto:kbabo@redhat.com <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>>>:
Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName and
DOM-aware, so that namespace-qualified headers can be
added and
appropriate namespace definitions can be added to the
DOM if
required. Of course you already know all this, but
pointing it out
makes me feel useful.
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to
inject the headers
into the request than it is to inject HTTP request headers,
obviously. But not impossible. We'd need to be aware
of the change
to any Content-Length that may be set.
>
> This makes the implementation slightly more
complicated, because
I think the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter
(it will
need to send the <soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header>
sections first,
then just stream the remaining request body as-is.
>
> So perhaps what we have is this:
>
> 1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
> 2. <soap:Envelope
xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> 3. <soap:Header>
> 4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
> 5. </soap:Header>
> 6. <soap:Body>
> 7. <m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
> 8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
> 9. </m:GetStockPrice>
> 10. </soap:Body>
> 11. </soap:Envelope>
>
> Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman
*before* any
policies are executed. We'll actually keep reading
until we find
<soap:Body> in the request body. We'll throw out
everything before
line #6 from our in-memory buffer, resulting in a
buffer with just
line #6 (and any extra bytes after that based on our
I/O chunk size).
>
> The policies will be executed, which may result in
soap headers
being added, modified, or removed. If all policies
pass, then we
proxy the request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP
connection
would simply send all bytes from the HTTP request
as-is. Instead,
we'll need to *generate* new content for lines 1-5,
with the newly
modified soap headers. Once the generated content is
sent, then we
send the contents of the in-memory buffer (which
contains line #6+
any additional bytes). After that, we proxy the
remaining bytes
from the HTTP request as-is.
>
> This may be starting to take shape. :)
>
> Additional thoughts?
>
> -Eric
>
> PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for
manipulating SOAP headers, rather than re-use the
existing HTTP
headers policy.
>
> On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
>> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to
make life
slightly
>> more complicated, will the headers policy be
updated to allow
add/remove
>> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
>>
>> ~ keith
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
>>>
>>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then we
will
*always* look
for a
>>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or
no soap
envelope is
>>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error
will be thrown.
>>>
>>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the
body of the HTTP
>>> request until we find "<soap:Body>".
We'll
extract the
<soap:Header>
>>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll
obviously keep
the data
>>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done,
we'll
include the
>>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding
type in some
sort
>>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy
context.
>>>
>>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process the
request as
normal,
>>> executing the policy chain, then processing the
request body,
etc. The
>>> entire request payload will still be processed
(remember that
we saved
>>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
>>>
>>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything
will look identical
>>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in
the policy
context.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since
several
validators
>>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements
(javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann
<eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers
available as DOM
Element
>>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based
lookup) would be
best.
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types.
WS-Security is a good
>>>> example of
>>>> this in practice.
>>>>
>>>> ~ keith
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of a
genius
approach as
>>>> well. I'm
>>>> actually a little bummed I didn't think
of it. :)
>>>>
>>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was
thinking that
I could
>>>> make the
>>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would
be willing
to provide
>>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP
expertise is
quite stale
>>>> at this
>>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these
changes would be
>>>> very useful.
>>>>
>>>> To start off with, what pieces of the
SOAP envelope
should
>>>> be extracted
>>>> prior to calling the policy chain?
Some candidates are:
>>>>
>>>> * The encoding style
>>>> * All SOAP headers
>>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an
HTTP header)
>>>> * ???
>>>>
>>>> For the soap headers, all of the
examples I've seen
take the
>>>> following
>>>> form:
>>>>
>>>> <HeaderName
xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
>>>>
>>>> It can also have the optional
"actor" or
"mustUnderstand"
>>>> attributes.
>>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax
though, so
I'm not
>>>> sure if the
>>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can
headers be more
>>>> complex than the
>>>> above?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I temporarily solved the problem by
storing the
request
>>>> body, which is
>>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest
object, in a
>>>> temporary buffer. I then
>>>> process the data (authentication)
and based on the
>>>> results proceed with
>>>> the policy chain or report a
failure. Then in
the end()
>>>> method of the
>>>> requestDataHandler method I write
the contents of my
>>>> temporary buffer
>>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer).
That way I can
forward
>>>> the request to
>>>> then ext policy in the chain. But
this is still
a hacky
>>>> way of doing
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> I would be glad to help with
extending SOAP
support. But
>>>> I would need a
>>>> few pointers where to start. The
way of storing SOAP
>>>> headers in the
>>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good
idea.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric
Wittmann
>>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>><mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
>>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
<mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the
excellent
question. I
>>>> will do my best
>>>> to answer and note that I am
CC'ing the
apiman-dev
>>>> mailing list so
>>>> others can chime in.
>>>>
>>>> First let me say that a
WS-Security policy
sounds
>>>> great - we haven't
>>>> focused much on the WS-*
protocols because
we get
>>>> much more demand
>>>> for managing REST APIs than
SOAP APIs. That
said,
>>>> better SOAP
>>>> support is certainly on the
radar. When that
>>>> happens, my hope is
>>>> that processing the envelope
might be a core
part of
>>>> the gateway and
>>>> so implementing policies that
use information in
>>>> there will be
>>>> easier. Perhaps your
implementation can be the
>>>> genesis of some of
>>>> that work!
>>>>
>>>> To your question - without core
changes to
apiman,
>>>> the approach you
>>>> *need* to take is to have your
policy implement
>>>> IDataPolicy. I
>>>> believe you may have already
tried that, and
>>>> observed that you
>>>> cannot send proper policy
failures from that
>>>> method. You are right
>>>> - that's something we will need
to fix! I
think you
>>>> should be able
>>>> to throw a runtime exception
from the
>>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
>>>> method if you detect an error.
However,
this is a
>>>> little bit hacky!
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I suggest (if you're
up for it) that we
>>>> perhaps work
>>>> together to bake SOAP support
directly into
the core
>>>> of apiman, such
>>>> that the SOAP envelope is
read/parsed
*before* the
>>>> policy chain is
>>>> executed. We could expose, for
example, the
SOAP
>>>> headers as a
>>>> proper Map<> stored either in
the context or
on the
>>>> ApiRequest.
>>>> This would allow you to
properly implement most
>>>> (all?) WS-*
>>>> protocols as proper apiman
policies in the
>>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
>>>> method.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin
Kastelic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I first thought to write
this question as an
>>>> issue on Github,
>>>> but it
>>>> seemed better to write you
a direct email.
>>>>
>>>> I am making a custom WS
Security policy,
that
>>>> reads the body and
>>>> check
>>>> the UsernameToken security
header. This
works
>>>> OK, but now I've
>>>> hit a wall.
>>>>
>>>> In the doApply method I get
the rawRequest
>>>> object and read the
>>>> body from
>>>> the ServletInputStream of
the request. The
>>>> problem I'm facing
>>>> now is
>>>> that the input stream was
read and it
can't be
>>>> reset back to it's
>>>> initial state.
>>>>
>>>> I was also trying to
implement the same
logic
>>>> in the
>>>> requestDataHandler
>>>> method, but I don't know if
it is even
possible
>>>> to send a failure
>>>> message to the request
chain from there.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggesstions ?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
>>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>>
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lp, Benjamin
>>
--
Lp, Benjamin
--
Lp, Benjamin
--
Lp, Benjamin
7:25 p.m.
New subject: Apiman - WS Security policy
Thanks, I will definitely keep tabs on your progress :)
2016-03-30 16:02 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com>:
Note, here are a couple of JIRA issues created for these features in
case
you're interested in tracking our progress on them:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/APIMAN-1072
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/APIMAN-1077
-Eric
On 3/30/2016 4:26 AM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> Just one more thing ...
> If a SOAP API is published on Apiman and you request the WSDL by using
> the gateway endpoint URL, you get the original WSDL - address is
> pointing to the real endpoint URL and not the gateway endpoint URL.
> I have solved this temporarily by adding URL rewrite policies to all
> SOAP APIs, which replace the real endpoint URL with the gateway endpoint
> URL.
> I guess it would be best if this policy was handled by the gateway
> internally so that you wouldn't have to worry by adding a correct policy
> to the API configuration.
>
> 2016-03-29 20:29 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Kastelic
> <kastelic.benjamin(a)gmail.com <mailto:kastelic.benjamin@gmail.com>>:
>
> OK, now I understand what you meant.
> I believe this would be a reasonable solution :)
>
> 2016-03-29 20:18 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>:
>
> My plan was unclear! Let's go with another example:
>
> Step 1 - the Gateway receives the following HTTP request:
>
> ----
> POST /apiman-gateway/MyOrg/soap-api/2.7 HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.example.org <http://www.example.org>
>
> Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
> X-API-Key: API-KEY-FOR-ACTIVE-CLIENT
> SOAPAction: ExampleAction
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> <soap:Header>
> <ns1:Header1
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
> <ns2:Header2
xmlns:ns2="uri:ns2">bar</ns2:Header2>
> </soap:Header>
> <soap:Body>
> <m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
> <m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
> </m:GetStockPrice>
> </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> ----
>
> We'll parse the first part of the envelope so that we can read
> the headers and make them available to any policies. After
> that's done, we'll invoke the policy chain as per normal.
> However, because it's a SOAP api, there will exist a
> SOAPRequestInfo object in the policy context. So policies can
> read and/or modify the soap information. This class might look
> something like this:
>
> public class SOAPRequestInfo {
> private String action;
> private String encoding;
> private Map<QName, SOAPHeader> headers;
> }
>
> This allows interested policies (like your ws-security) policy
> to have easy access to all the soap related stuff. It also
> allows you to alter these things. Including
> adding/removing/modifying the SOAP headers.
>
> So let's assume that we have a policy which *adds* a SOAP header
> (ns3:AddedHeader) and another policy which *removes* one
> (ns2:Header2). The policy code might look like this:
>
> SOAPRequestInfo soapInfo = context.getAttribute(
> Constants.SOAP_INFO, (SOAPRequestInfo) null);
> soapInfo.getHeaders().remove(new QName("uri:ns2",
"Header2"));
> soapInfo.getHeaders().put(
> new QName("uri:ns3", "AddedHeader"),
> createSoapHeader()
> );
>
>
> In that case, this is the HTTP request that will be sent/proxied
> to the back-end API:
>
> ----
> POST / HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.example.org <http://www.example.org>
> Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
> SOAPAction: ExampleAction
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> <soap:Header>
> <ns1:Header1
xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">foo</ns1:Header1>
> <ns3:AddedHeader
xmlns:ns3="uri:ns3">bar</ns3:AddedHeader>
> </soap:Header>
> <soap:Body>
> <m:GetStockPrice
xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/RHT">
> <m:StockName>Red Hat</m:StockName>
> </m:GetStockPrice>
> </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> ----
>
> Sound reasonable?
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On 3/29/2016 1:42 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
>
> If I understand you correctly Eric, only the soap:Body part
> will be
> forwarded to the registered API?
> What if the API still needs to receive the soap:Header part?
>
> 2016-03-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>
> <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>>>:
>
> Sounds cool to me. Header policy will need to be QName
> and
> DOM-aware, so that namespace-qualified headers can be
> added and
> appropriate namespace definitions can be added to the
> DOM if
> required. Of course you already know all this, but
> pointing it out
> makes me feel useful.
>
> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > That's an interesting idea. It'd be harder to
> inject the headers
> into the request than it is to inject HTTP request
> headers,
> obviously. But not impossible. We'd need to be aware
> of the change
> to any Content-Length that may be set.
> >
> > This makes the implementation slightly more
> complicated, because
> I think the HTTP connector will need to be made smarter
> (it will
> need to send the <soap:Envelope> and <soap:Header>
> sections first,
> then just stream the remaining request body as-is.
> >
> > So perhaps what we have is this:
> >
> > 1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > 2. <soap:Envelope
> xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
> > 3. <soap:Header>
> > 4. <ns1:Foo actor="..."
> xmlns:ns1="uri:ns1">BAR</ns1:Foo>
> > 5. </soap:Header>
> > 6. <soap:Body>
> > 7. <m:GetStockPrice
> xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/stock/Surya">
> > 8. <m:StockName>IBM</m:StockName>
> > 9. </m:GetStockPrice>
> > 10. </soap:Body>
> > 11. </soap:Envelope>
> >
> > Lines 1-5 will be read and consumed by apiman
> *before* any
> policies are executed. We'll actually keep reading
> until we find
> <soap:Body> in the request body. We'll throw out
> everything before
> line #6 from our in-memory buffer, resulting in a
> buffer with just
> line #6 (and any extra bytes after that based on our
> I/O chunk size).
> >
> > The policies will be executed, which may result in
> soap headers
> being added, modified, or removed. If all policies
> pass, then we
> proxy the request to the back-end. Normally the HTTP
> connection
> would simply send all bytes from the HTTP request
> as-is. Instead,
> we'll need to *generate* new content for lines 1-5,
> with the newly
> modified soap headers. Once the generated content is
> sent, then we
> send the contents of the in-memory buffer (which
> contains line #6+
> any additional bytes). After that, we proxy the
> remaining bytes
> from the HTTP request as-is.
> >
> > This may be starting to take shape. :)
> >
> > Additional thoughts?
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> > PS: @Keith - we'll likely have a separate Policy for
> manipulating SOAP headers, rather than re-use the
> existing HTTP
> headers policy.
> >
> > On 3/29/2016 8:13 AM, Keith Babo wrote:
> >> Sounds like a reasonable first step to me. Just to
> make life
> slightly
> >> more complicated, will the headers policy be
> updated to allow
> add/remove
> >> of SOAP:Headers? :-)
> >>
> >> ~ keith
> >>
> >>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK so here's what I propose (feedback welcome):
> >>>
> >>> *If* an API's 'type' is set to SOAP, then
we will
> *always* look
> for a
> >>> soap envelope in the body. If no body is found or
> no soap
> envelope is
> >>> found in the body, then a standard apiman error
> will be thrown.
> >>>
> >>> If an envelope *is* found, then we will read the
> body of the HTTP
> >>> request until we find "<soap:Body>".
We'll
> extract the
> <soap:Header>
> >>> and parse its children. While parsing, we'll
> obviously keep
> the data
> >>> we read in a memory buffer. Once parsing is done,
> we'll
> include the
> >>> soap headers, soap action, and the global encoding
> type in some
> sort
> >>> of soapinfo object and include that in the policy
> context.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, after all that is done, we'll process
the
> request as
> normal,
> >>> executing the policy chain, then processing the
> request body,
> etc. The
> >>> entire request payload will still be processed
> (remember that
> we saved
> >>> the bytes we read in a memory buffer).
> >>>
> >>> So from the perspective of a policy, everything
> will look identical
> >>> except that a SOAPInfo object will be available in
> the policy
> context.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> -Eric
> >>>
> >>> On 3/28/2016 1:48 PM, Benjamin Kastelic wrote:
> >>>> Yup, I agree. That would probably be best, since
> several
> validators
> >>>> (wss4j for example) require DOM Elements
> (javax.xml.soap.SOAPHeader) to
> >>>> function.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Benjamin
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-03-28 19:14 GMT+02:00 Eric Wittmann
> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks! In that case, making the headers
> available as DOM
> Element
> >>>> objects (perhaps with a simple QName based
> lookup) would be
> best.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Eric
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/28/2016 12:39 PM, Keith Babo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> SOAP:Headers can be complex types.
> WS-Security is a good
> >>>> example of
> >>>> this in practice.
> >>>>
> >>>> ~ keith
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Eric
> Wittmann
> >>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>><mailto:
> eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a bit hacky, but also sort of
a
> genius
> approach as
> >>>> well. I'm
> >>>> actually a little bummed I didn't
think
> of it. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> As for extending SOAP support - I was
> thinking that
> I could
> >>>> make the
> >>>> relevant changes to apiman if you would
> be willing
> to provide
> >>>> feedback/guidance/testing. My SOAP
> expertise is
> quite stale
> >>>> at this
> >>>> point, so having some eyeballs on these
> changes would be
> >>>> very useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> To start off with, what pieces of the
> SOAP envelope
> should
> >>>> be extracted
> >>>> prior to calling the policy chain?
> Some candidates are:
> >>>>
> >>>> * The encoding style
> >>>> * All SOAP headers
> >>>> * SOAPAction (already available as an
> HTTP header)
> >>>> * ???
> >>>>
> >>>> For the soap headers, all of the
> examples I've seen
> take the
> >>>> following
> >>>> form:
> >>>>
> >>>> <HeaderName
> xmlns="elementNS">Header-Value</HeaderName>
> >>>>
> >>>> It can also have the optional
"actor" or
> "mustUnderstand"
> >>>> attributes.
> >>>> The SOAP envelope schema is pretty lax
> though, so
> I'm not
> >>>> sure if the
> >>>> above is a convention or a rule. Can
> headers be more
> >>>> complex than the
> >>>> above?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Eric
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/26/2016 7:06 AM, Benjamin Kastelic
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I temporarily solved the problem by
> storing the
> request
> >>>> body, which is
> >>>> contained in ApiRequest.rawRequest
> object, in a
> >>>> temporary buffer. I then
> >>>> process the data (authentication)
> and based on the
> >>>> results proceed with
> >>>> the policy chain or report a
> failure. Then in
> the end()
> >>>> method of the
> >>>> requestDataHandler method I write
> the contents of my
> >>>> temporary buffer
> >>>> using super.write(IApimanBuffer).
> That way I can
> forward
> >>>> the request to
> >>>> then ext policy in the chain. But
> this is still
> a hacky
> >>>> way of doing
> >>>> this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be glad to help with
> extending SOAP
> support. But
> >>>> I would need a
> >>>> few pointers where to start. The
> way of storing SOAP
> >>>> headers in the
> >>>> ApiRequest object seems like a good
> idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-03-24 18:40 GMT+01:00 Eric
> Wittmann
> >>>> <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>><mailto:
> eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com
> <mailto:eric.wittmann@redhat.com>>>>>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Benjamin - thanks for the
> excellent
> question. I
> >>>> will do my best
> >>>> to answer and note that I am
> CC'ing the
> apiman-dev
> >>>> mailing list so
> >>>> others can chime in.
> >>>>
> >>>> First let me say that a
> WS-Security policy
> sounds
> >>>> great - we haven't
> >>>> focused much on the WS-*
> protocols because
> we get
> >>>> much more demand
> >>>> for managing REST APIs than
> SOAP APIs. That
> said,
> >>>> better SOAP
> >>>> support is certainly on the
> radar. When that
> >>>> happens, my hope is
> >>>> that processing the envelope
> might be a core
> part of
> >>>> the gateway and
> >>>> so implementing policies that
> use information in
> >>>> there will be
> >>>> easier. Perhaps your
> implementation can be the
> >>>> genesis of some of
> >>>> that work!
> >>>>
> >>>> To your question - without core
> changes to
> apiman,
> >>>> the approach you
> >>>> *need* to take is to have your
> policy implement
> >>>> IDataPolicy. I
> >>>> believe you may have already
> tried that, and
> >>>> observed that you
> >>>> cannot send proper policy
> failures from that
> >>>> method. You are right
> >>>> - that's something we will
need
> to fix! I
> think you
> >>>> should be able
> >>>> to throw a runtime exception
> from the
> >>>> write(IApimanBuffer chunk)
> >>>> method if you detect an error.
> However,
> this is a
> >>>> little bit hacky!
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead, I suggest (if
you're
> up for it) that we
> >>>> perhaps work
> >>>> together to bake SOAP support
> directly into
> the core
> >>>> of apiman, such
> >>>> that the SOAP envelope is
> read/parsed
> *before* the
> >>>> policy chain is
> >>>> executed. We could expose, for
> example, the
> SOAP
> >>>> headers as a
> >>>> proper Map<> stored either
in
> the context or
> on the
> >>>> ApiRequest.
> >>>> This would allow you to
> properly implement most
> >>>> (all?) WS-*
> >>>> protocols as proper apiman
> policies in the
> >>>> apply(ApiRequest request)
> >>>> method.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Eric
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/24/2016 7:58 AM, Benjamin
> Kastelic wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Greetings,
> >>>>
> >>>> I first thought to write
> this question as an
> >>>> issue on Github,
> >>>> but it
> >>>> seemed better to write you
> a direct email.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am making a custom WS
> Security policy,
> that
> >>>> reads the body and
> >>>> check
> >>>> the UsernameToken security
> header. This
> works
> >>>> OK, but now I've
> >>>> hit a wall.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the doApply method I get
> the rawRequest
> >>>> object and read the
> >>>> body from
> >>>> the ServletInputStream of
> the request. The
> >>>> problem I'm facing
> >>>> now is
> >>>> that the input stream was
> read and it
> can't be
> >>>> reset back to it's
> >>>> initial state.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was also trying to
> implement the same
> logic
> >>>> in the
> >>>> requestDataHandler
> >>>> method, but I don't know
if
> it is even
> possible
> >>>> to send a failure
> >>>> message to the request
> chain from there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any suggesstions ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Benjamin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Lp, Benjamin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Apiman-dev mailing list
> >>>> Apiman-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>
> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> >>>> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:Apiman-dev@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> >>>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-dev
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Lp, Benjamin
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lp, Benjamin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lp, Benjamin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lp, Benjamin
>
--
Lp, Benjamin
2942
days inactive
2948
days old
16 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Benjamin Kastelic -
Eric Wittmann -
Keith Babo