Re: [security-dev] Dependency of idm/impl on config module

On 08/02/13 13:00, Marek Posolda wrote: > On 08/02/13 14:31, Shane Bryzak wrote: >> On 08/02/13 02:00, Marek Posolda wrote: >>> On 07/02/13 17:01, Shane Bryzak wrote: >>>> Oops, I didn't mean to commit that before discussing with you, it must >>>> have snuck in with some other changes that I had to make to help out >>>> Bruno with one of the Aerogear examples. In any case, we do need to >>>> remove the dependency on the config module from idm - I'm ok with a >>>> dependency going the other way though. >>> Ok, but why we need to remove it? Is it some xml related conflict? I >>> have same problem today again. I fixed it locally in my env, but i >>> won't commit it until we sort this out. >> The most immediate problem is that it's breaking deployments - the >> config module is pulling in the federation module, which causes a >> deployment error in AS just from having the jar file present. > Hmm... actually the "config" module shouldn't be dependent on > "federation" module. Few weeks ago it was the case (and maybe you are > using older version of picketlink in aerogear), but in latest > picketlink master it's not the case anymore. Currently it should be > opposite. In other words, "config" module is currently dependent only > on "common" module and > both "federation" and "idm" modules are dependent on config module. Or > am I missing something? You're right, rebuilding the module fixed the dependency issue. >> Besides that though, the only dependency we should have in idm is on >> the common module. Also, configuration should be able to be written >> as a totally separate concern from IDM - is there a reason that >> XMLBasedIdentityManagerProvider and all the resolver/* classes can't >> go in the config module? > I think that if we want to use XML configuration in IDM unit tests, we > need to have those XML configuration classes and classes like > XMLBasedIdentityManagerProvider accessible from idm module. Those XML > type classes also needs to be accessible from "federation" module. > > I think that deployment structure with: > - "common" module as the base module > - "config" module dependent only on "common" module > - "federation" module dependent on "config" module (and "common" module) > - "idm" module dependent on "config" module (and "common" module) > > seems to me like most natural. > > wdyt? -1, if we want to use the config module in the tests then just make it a test-scoped dependency. In many if not most deployments PicketLink will be used within an EE environment and the config module will be unnecessary.