[security-dev] JPA?

Tue Jun 11 19:09:16 EDT 2013

And what does that have to do with JPA?

On 6/11/2013 7:08 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
> The point is that we don't want to define the identity schema in stone;
> we want to allow the developer to be able to do that (if they choose
> to), and we want the developer to be able to integrate that identity
> schema with their application schema (once again, if they choose to).
> Our main goal here is to not preempt the requirements for an
> application's identity model.
>
> On 12/06/13 08:54, Jason Greene wrote:
>> Hmmm on second though are you saying that the use case is supporting mapping of custom user typed to extra security metadata? If so wouldn't you want that to be generic and work regardless of the data store (ldap, etc)?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Jason Greene <jgreene at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You lost me. I don't understand why an application needs an abstraction (picketlink API) if they are also coding against the data raw.
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry Bill, but that's nonsense.  In Seam, the Identity bean (now part
>>>> of the PicketLink API) was a core component of most applications, at
>>>> least those that required any type of security.  I agree with your
>>>> statement that developers won't be using the "PicketLink data model" to
>>>> develop their applications, this is something that's largely hidden
>>>> behind more developer-friendly abstractions.  What PicketLink will do
>>>> though is work with an existing application model to enable more fluid
>>>> integration between them.  Once PLINK-130 is complete we can perhaps
>>>> give some more illuminating examples, but to summarise, you'll be able
>>>> to define your own identity classes (rather than use the ones built-in
>>>> to PicketLink) complete with custom attributes - for example, your
>>>> application might require a User class that has properties (attributes)
>>>> for addresses and contact details, which would actually be persisted via
>>>> corresponding entity beans within the application.  The changes we're
>>>> working on now will allow this and more.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/06/13 08:15, Bill Burke 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>

-- 
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com