On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Srinath Perera <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Milinda,
>
> Context hierarchy mirror the execution.  There is a execution context for
> each execution, each execution has two message contexts (incoming and
> outgoing). I guess it is OK to mirror the same idea in a different model.
>
> But IMHO security context you should keep, as that hides the
> different security impls as Ram mentioned.
>
+1

Lahiru

>
> --Srinath
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Raminderjeet Singh <
> [email protected]
> > wrote:
>
> > The Security context is to handle different security protocols.There can
> > be security context like Grid security, Cloud security, SSH/kerberos
> > security etc. We want to make the security configurable at provider level
> > and request level. Provider level means that we configure default
> security
> > setting for a provider while system setup. Request level means that if
> > someone want to overwrite security credentials then he can do it using
> > security context. Security is attached to each request.
> >
> > You are looking into the implementation so you are the best judge.
>  Please
> > let me know if you want me to explain more.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Raminder
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Milinda Pathirage wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lahiru,
> > >
> > > I am thinking of keeping security related data in MessageContext. In
> > > case we have to get security related data from application
> > > configuration, we can do it via ApplicationContext.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Milinda
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <[email protected]
> >
> > wrote:
> > >> Hi Milinda,
> > >>
> > >> Please see my comments.
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Milinda Pathirage <
> > >> [email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Devs,
> > >>>
> > >>> Current GFac runtime context hierarchy is confusing and I think there
> > is
> > >>> a mismatch between what actually happens inside GFac and the current
> > >>> context hierarchy which includes JobContext, InvocationContext,
> > >>> MessageContext, ExecutionContext and SecurityContext.
> > >>>
> > >>> As I understand what really happens inside GFac Core(only considering
> > job
> > >>> execution; deployment is excluded in this) is as follows(please
> > >>> correct me if I am wrong):
> > >>>
> > >>>  * Workflow interpreter or Axis2 Service invoke submitJob operation
> of
> > >>>  * GFac API with required information(input message, security related
> > >>>  * information, application description) and when invoked GFac Core
> > >>>  * will execute 'in handler chain', actual application(or job) and
> > >>>  * finally the 'out handler chain' before sending response message
> back
> > >>>  * to the client.
> > >>>
> > >>> According to above, I think it's enough to have MessageContext(to
> > >>> represent input and  output message), JobExecutionContext(represent
> > >>> single execution of a application; will contains both input and
> output
> > >>> message contexts and ApplicationContext) and
> > >>> ApplicationContext(Application related configuration required to
> > execute
> > >>> application).
> > >>>
> > >> I agree with this approach. FYI we have implemented JobContext very
> > >> recently to create an API for GFac . previously there wasn't an API
> for
> > >> gfac. So if you can preserve the data in JobContext this approach
> would
> > be
> > >> fine. And right now we are not using SecurityContext at all but
> ideally
> > we
> > >> will be having securityContext when we implement security related
> > features
> > >> of Airavata. So I think we need to preserve that data too, Do you
> think
> > we
> > >> need to keep them in SecurityContext object or just add them to  one
> of
> > the
> > >> proposed Context objects ? Please correct the naming according to the
> > data
> > >> we keep in Context objects and I agree the naming is kind of confusing
> > >> according to what we keep in context objects.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for proposing a new architecture and lets discuss more and come
> > up
> > >> with a better API.
> > >>
> > >> Lahiru
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> I am going to implement above in the branch created to refactor GFac.
> > >>> Please feel free to comment on this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Milinda
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Milinda Pathirage
> > >>> PhD Student Indiana University, Bloomington;
> > >>> E-mail: [email protected]
> > >>> Web: http://mpathirage.com
> > >>> Blog: http://blog.mpathirage.com
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> System Analyst Programmer
> > >> PTI Lab
> > >> Indiana University
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Milinda Pathirage
> > > PhD Student Indiana University, Bloomington;
> > > E-mail: [email protected]
> > > Web: http://mpathirage.com
> > > Blog: http://blog.mpathirage.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ============================
> Srinath Perera, Ph.D.
>   Senior Software Architect, WSO2 Inc.
>   Visiting Faculty, University of Moratuwa
>   Member, Apache Software Foundation
>   Research Scientist, Lanka Software Foundation
>   Blog: http://srinathsview.blogspot.com/
>   Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hemapani/
>  Phone: 0772360902
>



-- 
System Analyst Programmer
PTI Lab
Indiana University

Reply via email to