[security-dev] Dependency of idm/impl on config module

[Shane Bryzak]

On 18/02/13 23:41, Marek Posolda wrote:
> On 12/02/13 15:34, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>> Unfortunately, there is a cyclic dependency between config and IDM
>>
>> Compile:  config depends on IDM
>> Tests:  IDM depends on config
>>
>> Maven does not have scope (compile/test) level dependency graphs.
>>
>> This can be solved by pulling all the IDM tests into a subproject
>> "tests"  which will be idm/tests
> yes, cyclic dependency is what I expected. Variant with idm/tests should
> work, but this means that "idm/impl" and "idm/api" modules will be
> dependencies of "config" module, which will be dependency of "federation
> module. So in the end, "idm" will be transitive dependency of
> "federation" module, even if "idm" and "federation" are different
> things. Is it really what we want? Or am I missing something?

I think the idm module is always necessary, it defines the core identity 
model which the federation module *should* eventually consume anyway 
once we work some more on integration.  Any other dependencies of the 
config module (like the federation module) should be defined as optional 
in the pom.
>
> My opinion is, that both "common" and "config" could be part of same AS7
> module (like org.picketlink.commons) and other modules like "idm" and
> "federation" could simply require only this AS7 module as their dependency.

So are you suggesting we merge common and config?
>
> Marek
>
>>
>> On 02/11/2013 10:05 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2013 03:04 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/13 13:00, Marek Posolda wrote:
>>>>> On 08/02/13 14:31, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/02/13 02:00, Marek Posolda wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/02/13 17:01, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Oops, I didn't mean to commit that before discussing with you, it must
>>>>>>>> have snuck in with some other changes that I had to make to help out
>>>>>>>> Bruno with one of the Aerogear examples.  In any case, we do need to
>>>>>>>> remove the dependency on the config module from idm - I'm ok with a
>>>>>>>> dependency going the other way though.
>>>>>>> Ok, but why we need to remove it? Is it some xml related conflict? I
>>>>>>> have same problem today again. I fixed it locally in my env, but i
>>>>>>> won't commit it until we sort this out.
>>>>>> The most immediate problem is that it's breaking deployments - the
>>>>>> config module is pulling in the federation module, which causes a
>>>>>> deployment error in AS just from having the jar file present.
>>>>> Hmm... actually the "config" module shouldn't be dependent on
>>>>> "federation" module. Few weeks ago it was the case (and maybe you are
>>>>> using older version of picketlink in aerogear), but in latest
>>>>> picketlink master it's not the case anymore. Currently it should be
>>>>> opposite. In other words, "config" module is currently dependent only
>>>>> on "common" module and
>>>>> both "federation" and "idm" modules are dependent on config module. Or
>>>>> am I missing something?
>>>> You're right, rebuilding the module fixed the dependency issue.
>>>>
>>>>>> Besides that though, the only dependency we should have in idm is on
>>>>>> the common module.  Also, configuration should be able to be written
>>>>>> as a totally separate concern from IDM - is there a reason that
>>>>>> XMLBasedIdentityManagerProvider and all the resolver/* classes can't
>>>>>> go in the config module?
>>>>> I think that if we want to use XML configuration in IDM unit tests, we
>>>>> need to have those XML configuration classes and classes like
>>>>> XMLBasedIdentityManagerProvider accessible from idm module. Those XML
>>>>> type classes also needs to be accessible from "federation" module.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that deployment structure with:
>>>>> - "common" module as the base module
>>>>> - "config" module dependent only on "common" module
>>>>> -  "federation" module dependent on "config" module (and "common" module)
>>>>> - "idm" module dependent on "config" module (and "common" module)
>>>>>
>>>>> seems to me like most natural.
>>>>>
>>>>> wdyt?
>>>> -1, if we want to use the config module in the tests then just make it a
>>>> test-scoped dependency.  In many if not most deployments PicketLink will
>>>> be used within an EE environment and the config module will be unnecessary.
>>>>
>>> Shane - that is even better. Marek is on PTO this week. I am going to
>>> make the dependency a test scoped dep and see
>>> the challenges.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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