Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem

From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt;, security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Thursday, 11 April, 2013 3:49:35 PM Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem So, if you guys agree we can start working on the following improvements: 1) Rename the attribute jndi-url to jndi-name; 2) Publish in JNDI an IdentityManager for each realm. That would look like this: picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory/default (for the default realm) picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory/SomeRealm picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory/AnotherRealm 3) Add the default attribute for the identity-management element and handle it properly 4) Supports a @Realm annotation in order to allow the injection of IdentityManager that maps to a specific realm 5) Support custom entities using a attribute to specify a module from where the @IDMEntity classes are + persistence.xml; What do you think ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt;, security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:16:14 AM Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem On 11 Apr 2013, at 14:35, Stian Thorgersen <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > For custom entity classes I have two use cases in mind that we need should > test/support: > > * Layered product that needs to use custom entity classes for sub-systems - > in this case there's no JavaEE deployments and the entity classes needs to > be within a module. It's also fairly cumbersome to create an > EntityManagerFactory from a subsystem so I don't think that should be > required > > * Two applications sharing the same custom entity classes - for example > there's a main web app that contains the custom entity classes and the > persistence.xml, then there's a utility war that contains one single > @Startup @Singleton that is used to create some initial users - the > utility war would load a lot quicker than the main web app, so the EMF may > not be registered in JNDI in time > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Thursday, 11 April, 2013 2:04:17 PM >> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem >> >> Hi Stian, >> >> Your thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Comments inline. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:37:59 AM >>> Subject: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem >>> >>> I've had a look at https://community.jboss.org/wiki/PicketLink3Subsystem >>> and >>> also had a bit of a play with it. It's starting to look really good. I've >>> just got a few suggestions: >>> >>> >>> Suppress logging >>> ---------------- >>> At the moment there's a lot of logging at info level produced by the >>> subsystem, this is mostly Hibernate. It would be great if we could >>> somehow >>> manage to suppress this logging output, might be problematic though as >>> Hibernate logs this stuff at INFO level when it really should be DEBUG. >>> There's also a few WARN's we might want to look into fixing. >> >> Review the logging and messages is one of the things in our TODO list. >> >>> >>> >>> JNDI names in standalone.xml >>> ---------------------------- >>> I think it makes sense to use the same format for JNDI names as the >>> datasource element, since folks will already be used to that. So I >>> suggest >>> we change it slightly to look like this: >>> >>> <jpa-store data-source=”java:jboss/datasources/ExampleDS" ...> >>> <identity-management jndi-name="java:picketlink/ExampleIDM" ...> >>> >>> * Full jndi name (including java:) and use jndi-name instead of jndi-url >> >> +1 for that. Not sure from where I got the jndi-url if the jndi-name is >> like >> a pattern used by other subsystems :) >> >>> >>> >>> Manifest.mf >>> ----------- >>> We need to make sure it works when including org.picketlink, >>> org.picketlink.idm, etc in manifest.mf as well as >>> jboss-deployment-structure.xml. The documentation should also reflect >>> this. >>> One thing I also thought of is that for the future it may be nice to have >>> something that detects PicketLink usage in a deployment and automatically >>> adds dependencies as required. For example if deployment uses >>> @IdentityManager, @Identity, etc. annotations. >>> >> >> +1. I like the idea, ans also mark them as IDM or Core deployments and >> handle >> them properly. >> >>> >>> JNDI >>> ---- >>> @Resource doesn't require CDI, so it should be possible to do the >>> following >>> without CDI (and without org.picketlink.core): >>> >>> @Resource(lookup = "java:/picketlink/DevIdentityManager") >>> private IdentityManagerFactory identityManagerFactory; >>> >>> I was wondering if we wanted to have the IdentityManager available in >>> JNDI >>> as >>> well? >> >> The problem in publishing the IdentityManager in JNDI is related with >> realms. >> If the IDM config has multiple realms which one should we put ? The >> default >> ? >> >> Give to users the IdentityManagerFactory instead, allow them to use their >> configurations as they want. >> >> One thing that I thought about that is if is a good idea to publish all >> IdentityManager instances for each configured realm. So, if the IDM config >> defines multiple realms, we publish a IdentityManager instance for each of >> them. But as we discussed this may become messy. I think this is the right approach. >> >> What do you think ? >> >>> >>> >>> CDI >>> --- >>> I was thinking about a nice way to do the CDI support of injecting a >>> 'default' IdentityManager. I propose adding the attribute 'default' to >>> the >>> 'identity-management' element (<identity-management default="true" ...>). >>> We >>> should throw a warning if a user has specified multiple, then we just >>> pick >>> one (first one?). >> >> I think we had some discussion about that. I'm +1 for the default >> attribute. >> >> Ideally, we should throw an exception if multiple configurations are >> provided >> with the default attribute, IMO. Agreed, this should be an error. >> >>> >>> This does mean that if a 'identity-management' has the 'default' >>> attribute >>> set on it all deployments will by default have that IdentityManager >>> injected >>> into it. We also need a way for users to override this on a >>> per-deployment >>> basis. Can we easily detect if a deployment contains configuration for a >>> IdentityManager itself? >> >> The IMF can be obtained today in the following ways: >> >> 1) From JNDI (@Resource, InitialContext, etc) >> 2) Providing a @Producer that produces a IdentityConfiguration. In this >> case the deployment provides its own configuration, instead of using >> the >> subsystem config. >> 3) When using the Core services, the deployment must specify a >> web.xml#resource-ref. Otherwise the deployment must provides its own >> configuration (normal usage of PicketLink Core) >> >> Considering 2), if no IdentityConfiguration is produced, we can >> automatically >> choose the default. >> >> Considering 3), if no web.xml@resource-ref is defined, we can >> automatically >> choose the default. >> >>> >>> Further we need to have a way for a user to specify which IdentityManager >>> to >>> inject. I think this should be done based on the 'alias' attribute and >>> not >>> the 'jndi-name', as we should leave jndi completely out of the picture >>> for >>> CDI (resource-ref in web.xml/ejb.xml should be used for JNDI lookup, >>> InitialContext#lookup and @Resource, I find it confusing to use this for >>> CDI). I propose that we use the ServiceRegistry to retrieve the >>> IdentityManagerFactory service based on the alias specified by a @Alias >>> qualifer: >> >> If you look at the Infinispan subsystem, this is the way it works. Using >> the >> @Resource annotation to inject cachecontainers, etc. >> >> I like that because it is very simple, and requires very little from our >> and >> users side. This is also the approach the spec defines to access server resources. >> >> We have a test case that shows how to use CDI qualifiers. It is quite >> simple. >> >> But at the same time, I agree that use the name is more beautiful than the >> jndi-name :). >> >> We can try that, if you want. We shouldn't do this, it encourages the CDI anti-pattern of using string based qualifiers. >> >>> >>> @Inject >>> @Alias(“development”) >>> private IdentityManager identityManager; >>> >>> Obviously users should also be able to add their own qualifiers, I think >>> this >>> should work: >>> >>> @Inject @Alias(“development”) >>> @Produces @Development >>> private IdentityManager identityManager; This won't work, CDI will give you a definition error. You need to use @Resource to access server resources, or what Pedro suggests below. >>> >>> One alternative to the above is to change 'alias' to 'name' then we could >>> use >>> the standard @Named annotation instead of @Alias. >> >> We are not injecting the IdentityManager anymore, but the >> IdentityManagerFactory. The @Alias makes sense to get a IdentityManager >> instance for a configured realm. Maybe we should consider @Realm, instead. >> >>> >>> >>> Custom Entity Classes >>> --------------------- >>> Personally I don't like the idea of custom entity classes (and >>> persistence.xml) being deployed as JavaEE deployments (i.e. >>> standalone/deployments). This is also problematic for sub-systems that >>> wants >>> to use the IDM if they need to use custom entity classes (there's a good >>> chance we'll need this for EventJuggler). I also think this will be >>> problematic if multiple deployments uses the same IdentityManager. >>> >>> One idea I had was that we could create a module that contains the custom >>> Entity classes, then specify that on the 'jpa-store' element: >>> >>> <jpa-store data-source=”java:jboss/datasources/ExampleDS" >>> custom-entity-module='org.company.acme.pl' /> This should work IMO. >>> >>> The module 'org.company.acme.pl' would contain a single jar with the >>> Entity >>> classes. When 'custom-entity-module' is used we include that module >>> instead >>> of 'org.picketlink.idm.schema' module when creating the EMF + we should >>> be >>> able to detect the correct classes using the @IDMEntity. >> >> The JPA store lets you use the EMF in two ways: >> >> 1) Using a embedded persistence unit. In this case you need only yo >> provide the datasource. The built-in schema (pl-idm-schema) will be >> used. >> 2) Using your own persistence unit. In this case you need to expose your >> EMF via JNDI. >> >> Regarding 2), you are not forced to deploy your persistence.xml as a >> separated deployment. You can also use the persistence unit deployed with >> your application. >> >> I'm going to create some tests so check a possible classloader issue when >> using custom entity classes. >> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> security-dev mailing list >>> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> security-dev mailing list >> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev > > _______________________________________________ > security-dev mailing list > security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev _______________________________________________ security-dev mailing list security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev