[security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
Pedro Igor Silva
psilva at redhat.com
Fri Apr 12 12:21:12 EDT 2013
I see, but in this case we need to always create the IdentityManager from the IdentityManagerFactory, for each lookup.
But I think I found another way to do that using what the MSC provides.
Basically, when registering the IdentityManagerService and publishing the IdentityManager instances for each realm, we tell the MSC to always create a instance for each lookup. That way, we can ensure that each lookup will be associated with a fresh instance (request-scoped behaviour).
Something like what the javax.naming.spi.ObjectFactory provides for custom objects in the JNDI.
I think we can consider this feature now. I think that support both ways:
- Let users use the IMF directly
- Let users inject the IM for a specific realm
Is a nice thing to have.
Going to show to Shane what I did to see what he thinks.
Regards.
Pedro Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
Cc: "Shane Bryzak" <sbryzak at redhat.com>, security-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 10:05:08 AM
Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
Normally JNDI is stateless - it gives you a new instance every time. No need to create a wrapper.
On 11 Apr 2013, at 23:05, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva at redhat.com> wrote:
> To overcome this I'm thinking to use a wrapper class that creates a fresh IdentityManager instance for each method invocation.
>
> public class IdentityManagerProxy implements IdentityManager {
>
> ...
>
> public void add(IdentityType identityType) throws IdentityManagementException {
> createIdentityManager().add(identityType);
> }
>
> private IdentityManager createIdentityManager() {
> return this.identityManagerFactory.createIdentityManager(new Realm(this.realm));
> }
>
> ...
> }
>
> I'm still testing, but it seems we can use that.
>
> Thanks.
> Pedro Igor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shane Bryzak" <sbryzak at redhat.com>
> To: security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:26:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>
> On 12/04/13 01:30, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
>> So, the updated list would be:
>>
>> 1) Rename the attribute jndi-url to jndi-name;
>> 2) Publish in JNDI an IdentityManager for each realm.
>
> Keep in mind that each IdentityManager instance has its own
> SecurityContext, which is designed to be request-scoped. If we don't
> have the capacity to support request-scoped instances in JNDI, then they
> should be stateless (i.e. a new instance created every time).
>
>> 3) Support custom entities using a attribute to specify a module from
>> where the @IDMEntity classes are + persistence.xml;
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>, security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:22:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>>
>> If you come up with one, let me know - this is something no one has solved in any situation ;-)
>>
>> On 11 Apr 2013, at 16:11, Stian Thorgersen <stian at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think for now we should drop the default attribute + @Realm, and only support @Resource (i.e. user has to create @Produce @Resource to be able to inject IdentityManager for sub-system). If we can think of a nice way to inject @IdentityManager allowing user to specify correct identity-management and realm that would be great, but I don't think we have an approach to this at the moment.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>, security-dev at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>, security-dev at 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 at redhat.com> 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>>>>>> Cc: security-dev at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> To: security-dev at 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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> security-dev mailing list
>>>>>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> security-dev mailing list
>>>>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> security-dev mailing list
>>>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> security-dev mailing list
>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
More information about the security-dev
mailing list