For this mechanism can you guarantee to us 100% that there is not going
to be any demand in the future to combine it with any other mechanism?
On 13/12/13 07:03, Anil Saldhana wrote:
You should remove that setJaspiAuthenticationMechanism and use the
setAuthenticationMechanism(string,authmech) format. That is my opinion. :)
In my use case, I have a single authentication mechanism which I want to
use for the webapp
That is it.
I can use the Factory indirection that you have recently added but it is
counter intuitive and overkill for my use case.
Users of undertow API will ask the same question or get confused if
their simple use cases such as mine are not covered with a direct
API method. :)
On 12/13/2013 12:53 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> There already is one:
> At the moment it is used for JASPI only, hence the name. I thought about giving it a
more generic sounding name but in general I don't really want to encourage its use,
unless it is actually needed.
> Why do you need this?
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
>> To: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Friday, 13 December, 2013 12:23:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [undertow-dev] AuthenticationMechanismFactory
>> would it be possible to have an overloaded method in the
>> DeploymentInfo (as before) to just add one authentication mechanism
>> without the factory? You can have the other addAuthenticationMechanism
>> method to do your factory you are describing here.
>> On 12/12/2013 05:14 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>> There are a few major advantages.
>>> Now all an extension does is register the factory, and the user can enable
>>> it in web.xml (or jboss-web.xml) using whatever options they want, in
>>> whatever order they want. If an extension really wants to completely
>>> override the auth mechanism it can still do that, by simply clearing the
>>> auth mechanism list and adding the name of its mechanism instead.
>>> Basically before there was no real way for extensions to play nicely with
>>> each other. Undertow has the ability for multiple authentication
>>> mechanisms to work correctly together, but with the old way there was no
>>> reliable way to actually use this with custom authentication mechanisms,
>>> as there was no way to specify order.Custom mechanisms would also need to
>>> have a custom way of configuration, e.g. reading options from a separate
>>> Now custom mechanisms work exactly the same way as the standard mechanisms,
>>> it is easy to specify the order, it is easy to configure any properties
>>> that may be required, and no functionality has been lost, as an extension
>>> can still override auth mechanisms if that is the intent.
>>> The fact that not all methods may use the form data parser is irrelevant,
>>> some methods will and so it is provided.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
>>>> To: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 12 December, 2013 11:10:48 PM
>>>> Subject: [undertow-dev] AuthenticationMechanismFactory
>>>> I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the new factory
>>>> for authentication mechanisms
>>>> Why not just allow the direct install of authentication mechanisms like
>>>> we did before in the DeploymentInfo?
>>>> I am unsure we need another level of indirection with this factory which
>>>> also has access to the FormDataParser. Basically, the specifics of FORM
>>>> authentication have sneaked into this factory. Many of the
>>>> authentication mechanisms do not even involve forms.
>> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev mailing list