[security-dev] JPA?

[Shane Bryzak]

That's entirely supported.

On 12/06/13 08:34, Jason Greene wrote:
> I have to agree. I mean even if the application wanted to access the data using JPA they probably want their own object model and there is nothing stopping an IDM using JDBC from being compatible with that model anyway.
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Most non-framework developers, even Seam ones, will never see the
>> Picketlink API.  Most will be picking pre-made widgets and assemblying
>> these widgets together  through configuration or the management console.
>>   Most Framework developers will want to write plugins that are usable
>> with any storage back end, this also means no JPA.
>>
>> I think you're fooling yourself if you think app developers are going to
>> use the Picketlink data model to developer their applications.  If
>> anything users are going to have existing models and security
>> infrastructure they need to integrate with.
>>
>> On 6/11/2013 6:03 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>>> Of course there is, close to 100% of the developers that use/used Seam
>>> would have been using JPA. Remember that the identity model will for
>>> many use cases also tie into the application model, in fact the
>>> refactoring that I'm working on for PLINK-130 will help to strengthen
>>> this connection.
>>>
>>> On 12/06/13 07:04, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> How exactly does JPA give users more control over their data than JDBC?
>>>>     Also, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you that there is this large
>>>> contingent of app deveopers that want JPA.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/11/2013 4:57 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>>> Bill,  application developers will care about JPA vs JDBC if they want
>>>>> greater control on things like roles, groups etc. While container driven
>>>>> security is good for many applications, a large contingent of app
>>>>> developers just want greater control on determining the roles/groups of
>>>>> users authenticating to their app.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/11/2013 03:53 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>> JPA vs. JDBC isn't a choice, users won't care.  Why would app developers
>>>>>> care either?  They should be using management interfaces or the upcoming
>>>>>> sso server to manage their domains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/11/2013 4:39 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>>>>> Jason - I will let others chime in their thoughts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We want to support as many Identity Store implementations as possible.
>>>>>>> We implemented a File Store implementation mainly to aid its usage as
>>>>>>> the default identity store implementation in WildFly.
>>>>>>> I have no issues in providing an additional JDBC identity store
>>>>>>> implementation. It just gives the users more implementations to choose from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       From application developers perspective, I think the balance still
>>>>>>> swings toward JPA. But for Wildfly core authentication using PicketLink
>>>>>>> IDM, for database backends, JDBC makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will be at least a couple of months before we attempt a JDBC
>>>>>>> implementation due to 2.5.0 release. That is why I placed the JIRA issue
>>>>>>> fix to be 2.5.1. I think this works for Wildfly roadmap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/11/2013 03:14 PM, Jason Greene wrote:
>>>>>>>> I thought it best to move the discussion on undertow to here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anil opened a JIRA to investigate:
>>>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/PLINK-190
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My concerns are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Initialization Time (JPA has always been expensive in this area)
>>>>>>>> - Dependency chain problems (if this forces the app server (which at some point might not be limited to Java EE) to have a big chunk of EE just to support database auth)
>>>>>>>> - Potential increase of memory usage? (in particular if we end up with hibernate using infinispan as a cache which is then double cached at the auth level)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess the main reason for the switch from JDBC is to avoid supporting various DB dialects. However, the following is also true:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - ANSI SQL-92 is supported by almost everyone, and it allows for portable DML
>>>>>>>> - IDMs have very simple relational layouts and queries
>>>>>>>> - It's easy to abstract queries to allow customization by a user
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>> -- 
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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