On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 at 17:50 Alexey Loubyansky <alexey.loubyansky@redhat.com> wrote:On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Farah Juma <fjuma@redhat.com> wrote:A solution to part of the problem mentioned in WFCORE-3596 that was discussed is to introduce the concept of named permission sets. In particular, instead of having a permission-mapping reference permissions, it would instead reference named permission-sets. This would allow the provisioning tool to be able to add/remove permissions to/from a default permission-set based on the presence/absence of a specific subsystem when generating the default configuration. However, as Alexey pointed out, this doesn't solve the problem of knowing which permission-mapping a permission-set should be added to when attempting to preserve user configuration changes for patching, version updates, etc.Right. It does not change the permission-mappings, they remain to be a list of items with no identity. Which is the fundamental problem.But why is that a problem? I think that is the piece still missing.By moving the list of the permissions into a single named resource the tooling no longer has a need to be performing the manipulation within the simple permission mapper so that can be left to the administrator to look after independently.
Thanks,AlexeyThanks,FarahOn Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Alexey Loubyansky <alexey.loubyansky@redhat.com> wrote:While this is addressed mainly to the Elytron team, it seems like we would appreciate opinions from other colleagues since we are basically stuck discussing possible ways to resolve https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-3596 The description in the jira is pretty brief assuming people know what that is about, since it's been raised before multiple times. Here is what it is about fundamentally.If a configuration model (of a subsystem or any other component) includes a list of configurable units (let's assume XML elements for simplicity) that don't have any identity (unique id/name/path/etc) this is a big problem for supporting patching and version updates preserving user configuration changes. Or simply customizing the default config model using a tool. By a big problem I mean it's simply not going to work reliably.As a simple exercise that demonstrates the issue, imagine you have two configs each of which includes a list of these configurable units that have no identity. Now try to identify the difference between the two lists. Or merge them with one overwriting the other. Basically components w/o an identity can not be manipulated. You can only add them but not modify or even remove (unless their index in the list is a constant value of course).I don't think I've seen any issue of this kind in our (WF/EAP) configs except for the Elytron's permission-mapping's. (If somebody knows such components please let me know).If I misunderstand the Elytron config model or approaching this from a wrong angle, please let me know.Question for the Elytron team: is the problem I am describing clear? Do you admit it as a problem?Thanks,Alexey
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev