Re: [security-dev] JPA?

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