Sorry, yes, I was to specific calling out Gerhard ;-) On 30 Jan 2012, at 12:57, Pete Muir wrote:
> I think we're suffering from a communication problem here, rather than a > different philosophy ;-) > > What we are proposing is an API/SPI abstraction which delegates the actual > work to other frameworks (or modules if there isn't a framework that does > what is needed). The backends could be Shiro, or PicketLink etc. Backends > would be responsible for providing authentication, authorisation, and > identity management services. > > To put it another way, what we are providing is the *programming model* for > security. > > Gerhard, does that sound more inline with what you are thinking of? > > On 30 Jan 2012, at 12:45, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > >> hi shane, >> >> that's a noble goal. however, i know a lot of users who will never use our >> security >implementation< - only the api/spi to integrate with the other >> modules of deltaspike (that's >independent< of what we are providing in >> this area). >> >> -> -1 for only providing one way of doing things in this case. users should >> be able to plug in easily. >> +1 for designing a new and simple module based on ideas of existing >> solutions, >but< based on a thin generic api used by the rest of deltaspike >> which can be used also for custom integrations of 3rd party solutions. >> +1 for providing adapters for existing security frameworks like shiro (or >> at least we shouldn't block the possibility to implement such custom >> adapters easily). >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> >> 2012/1/30 Shane Bryzak <sbry...@redhat.com> >> >>> On 30/01/12 18:57, Gerhard Petracek wrote: >>> >>>> hi @ all, >>>> >>>> as discussed at [1] the current suggestion is to start with new modules >>>> (esp. the jpa and the security module). >>>> both will show that we will face very different approaches we need to >>>> support. e.g. in case of the security module dan suggested an integration >>>> for apache shiro, shane mentioned picketlink idm and in myfaces codi we >>>> have a very thin integration layer for 3rd party frameworks (but no >>>> concrete implementation). >>>> >>>> in general: >>>> in myfaces codi we are using cdi mechanisms to handle different >>>> approaches. >>>> if we support multiple approaches, we have only one default implementation >>>> or only optional implementations. >>>> if there is a default implementation, the other implementations are cdi >>>> alternatives. >>>> in case of interceptors it's similar - it's handled via different >>>> dependent >>>> scoped strategies and the current one (default or an activated alternative >>>> implementation) gets injected in the interceptor. >>>> (since the interceptor-strategies are dependent scoped, there is>no< >>>> additional overhead caused by a proxy.) >>>> >>>> i suggest that we also rely on (the same) cdi mechanisms. >>>> >>>> a 2nd topic is the usage in other modules (e.g. security concepts in an >>>> other deltaspike module). as discussed at [2], we can't use optional >>>> dependencies easily. >>>> in myfaces codi we keep such basic interfaces in core-api. however, the >>>> core would grow quickly as soon as we add further modules (+ we know that >>>> we will see more modules in deltaspike than we intended to have in myfaces >>>> codi). therefore we could think about a different approach. >>>> >>>> imo the security module(s) will be the perfect fit to discuss and >>>> prototype >>>> the basic concept. the following part is just an example and is>not< a >>>> suggestion to use/integrate the mentioned frameworks: >>>> >>>> - deltaspike-security-api >>>> * deltaspike-security-**picketlink-impl >>>> * deltaspike-security-shiro-**integration-impl >>>> * deltaspike-security-xyz-**integration-impl >>>> >>> >>> As far as security goes, I don't think we should be using any 3rd party >>> frameworks. I've looked at Shiro and it's quite simplistic compared to >>> what we plan to do, and the existing PicketLink IDM needs an overhaul to >>> simplify its API. What I envision is a new security framework, inspired by >>> the best features wherever we find them, designed from the ground up to >>> take advantage of CDI. I want people to automatically think of DeltaSpike >>> Security as the defacto application security solution when they need to >>> secure their Java EE apps. We also have JSR-351 (Java Identity API) to >>> consider, of which both Bolek and I are members of the expert group - >>> DeltaSpike might be a good place to implement this new specification also. >>> >>> >>> >>>> all impl. modules are optional -> there wouldn't be a dedicated default >>>> implementation. that means other modules only use >>>> the deltaspike-security-api. since there is no default implementation, we >>>> would have to use>e.g.< our BeanProvider which allows to resolve optional >>>> beans easily. that would allow us to support different frameworks and an >>>> implementation gets activated automatically as soon as it gets added to an >>>> application -> we don't have to choose a preferred approach and even >>>> possible add-ons for deltaspike can provide adapters for 3rd party >>>> frameworks easily. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> gerhard >>>> >>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/QUU >>>> [2] http://s.apache.org/qAK >>>> >>>> >>> >
