Re: [undertow-dev] AuthenticationMechanismFactory

Don't care that much about the convenience as long as it doesn't hinter implementation. Superfluous APIs just bug me. Just seems that AuthMechFactory is only usable for very simple cases that don't require access to metadata beyond the property map you pass or require adding additional handlers and/or mechanisms. At this point though, I just want a stable API. On 12/13/2013 9:58 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote: > Ok, I have added some convenience methods. > > Now you can just do: > > d.clearLoginMethods().addFirstAuthenticationMechanism("OAUTH", new OAuthAuthenticationMechanism()); > > Behind the scenes it is still the same thing though. Basically the first call clears out any configured auth methods, and the second registers a factory that just returns the same instance, and then adds it to the start of the authentication mechanisms list. > > Stuart > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Friday, 13 December, 2013 3:27:53 PM >> Subject: Re: [undertow-dev] AuthenticationMechanismFactory >> >> This point is bogus. You can write ServletExtensions that are triggered >> only by metadata defined within a deployment. I never understood why >> you needed this extra SPI. >> >> Also, at least in my Keycloak case, AuthMechFactory isn't enough for me >> and I have to write an extension anyways. I need to add additional >> handlers that operate pre and post authentication. >> AuthenticationMechanismFactory is just an additional level of >> indirection I don't want or need. >> >> On 12/13/2013 2:41 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote: >>> For a good example of extensions should just be using the factory >>> mechanism, consider the case for extensions that are bundled with Wildfly. >>> >>> If an extension simply tries to take over a deployments authentication >>> mechanism, then we could never bundle it in the server, as it would take >>> over all deployments. Extensions that use the factory mechanism though can >>> be bundled in the server and exposed to all deployments, and the user >>> selects the mechanism to use via a standard descriptor. >>> >>> Stuart >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Stuart Douglas" <sdouglas(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> Sent: Friday, 13 December, 2013 8:29:17 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [undertow-dev] AuthenticationMechanismFactory >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> deploymentInfo.setAuthenticationMechanism(myAuthenticationMechanism).setIgnoreStandardAuthenticationMechanism(true); >>>>> >>>>> 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. :) >>>> >>>> Why do you want to completely override the method, and ignore whatever >>>> method >>>> a user has configured? In general I would prefer that mechanisms used the >>>> factory mechanism, so they all behave in a consistent manner. What is your >>>> use case that makes this not an option? >>>> >>>> Stuart >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/13/2013 12:53 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote: >>>>>> There already is one: >>>>>> >>>>>> io.undertow.servlet.api.DeploymentInfo#setJaspiAuthenticationMechanism >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> Stuart >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> To: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 13 December, 2013 12:23:22 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [undertow-dev] AuthenticationMechanismFactory >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stuart, >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Anil >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stuart >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>>> To: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 12 December, 2013 11:10:48 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: [undertow-dev] AuthenticationMechanismFactory >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stuart, >>>>>>>>> I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the new factory >>>>>>>>> added >>>>>>>>> for authentication mechanisms >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/blob/master/core/src/main/java/io... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Anil >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> undertow-dev mailing list >>>>>>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> undertow-dev mailing list >>>>>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> undertow-dev mailing list >>>>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> undertow-dev mailing list >>>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> undertow-dev mailing list >>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >>> >> >> -- >> Bill Burke >> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >> http://bill.burkecentral.com >> _______________________________________________ >> undertow-dev mailing list >> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com _______________________________________________ undertow-dev mailing list undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev