> No, I would prefer GAE to implement the system completely, using > existing elements.
I was unaware of the weight that your preferences have. I note that your implementation requires new elements, namely additions to app.yaml. > It would allow some great additions, such as a > common billing and payment engine - something most app developers > would love to have taken off their plate. There are lots of other implementations that have that property, as well as the others described below. > As it stands GAE does not allow cross data store queries, > and from my perspective that is an aspect of the security > architecture. 106 wants that aspect 'relaxed'. How do you know how the current GAE code actually works? One possible implementation that satisfies every currently observable behavior involves an "open datastore" routine that is passed the name of the relevant datastore and called by Google code that lives in application space. This routine returns a token that is used by every datastore access routine. (A given process may access the datastore on behalf of urls that require login as well as ones that don't so whatever mechanism connects a process to a datastore probably does not require any user credentials. However, "open datastore" may use app- specific credentials baked into the application by google's set up code.) There are a number of places where "open datastore" could be called. 106 or any of the variants that I've mentioned would merely make "open datastore" available through some appropriate safeguards and would be just as secure as the current system. I don't know Google's code either, but it is generally believed that BigTable is used in many internal Google applications. The easy way to make BigTable available to applications is via such a routine called by application-space code. To the extent that GAE's datastore is "just" a BigTable wrapper.... On Dec 30, 6:17 am, hawkett <hawk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "The system" in this case is the combination of the GAE platform and > > an application running on said platform. > > No, I would prefer GAE to implement the system completely, using > existing elements. How? In app.yaml, you specify that your > application supports mapping multiple google apps user spaces to your > app. Currently it only allows one. This is an application > marketplace type concept. When my app is added, a new data partition > is created for their users. Most importantly I am the administrator > of the app and all of the data partitions - this is different to > deploying my app to their GAE account - it still resides in my > account, and the customer has no administrative rights beyond what I > give the in my application code. I need only have one app deployed. > > With this model, registration, user provisioning, authentication and > data partitioning are all handled external to my application code > using building blocks that are already present in the GAE offering. > The only change to my application code from right now is an entry in > app.yaml. It's not even particularly complicated - especially for me, > the application developer. I can imagine implementations that don't > even require the app.yaml entry. > > I'll admit (as I'm sure you will) that this thread has led me to think > more deeply about the implementation of the use case from my original > post, but the above is not excessive, and is much preferable to > application code. It would allow some great additions, such as a > common billing and payment engine - something most app developers > would love to have taken off their plate. > > Yet another feature this would allow - version migration for > customers. I deploy separate versions of my app, and have the ability > to move customer data partitions between app deployments. An obvious > use case is that some customers may be happy to try new features in > beta, others may want to wait for release versions. It is worth > noting that google apps essentially supports this feature currently > with the checkbox indicating that you want the latest features. > > These are all major development efforts that carry significant risks > to your customers, and are mostly diversions to core creative > application development. Common use cases should be moved to the > platform layer, freeing the developer to actually build their > application. This, I think, is a good summary of the stated goals of > GAE platform. > > I'll add the above implementation as a suggestion to 945 to clear up > any misunderstanding about platform vs application. > > > The GAE security architecture is not based on "not allowing cross data > > store queries". It's based on authenticated access to partitioned > > datastores, which is a very different thing. > > I did say - > > '...security architecture of GAE is based on trustable external > authentication, data partitioning, mapping that data partition to the > authenticated entity, and not allowing cross data store queries' > > I realise they are different things, that's why I listed them > separately. As it stands GAE does not allow cross data store queries, > and from my perspective that is an aspect of the security > architecture. 106 wants that aspect 'relaxed'. > > While I don't think GAE will implement cross data store queries using > the data API (I still think exposing an application API to access said > data, or supporting one data partition for many apps is the right > choice), a possible implementation that would be acceptable to me is > adding an entry to app.yaml specifying how strict data partitioning > should be for an application. For my use case I would choose the > strictest option, and for yours something less so. It's not ideal, as > an error in app.yaml could lead to the cited bug, but the risk profile > much less, and more easily auditable. > > On Dec 30, 12:53 am, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > 'The system spawns a virtual instance of the app - or at least allows > > > mapping a single datastore partition to the authenticated entity. You > > > coudl extend it by allowing multiple datastores per authenticated > > > entity and choosing the appropriate one at authentication time.' > > > > I haven't mentioned application code at all. If you have interpreted > > > 'the system'' to mean my application code, then I think you are being > > > disingenuous. > > > "The system" in this case is the combination of the GAE platform and > > an application running on said platform. > > > > What's the point of a feature request for my own application code? > > > Oh really? The reason that this requires a feature request is that it > > isn't (currently) possible for an application running on GAE to > > request the creation of another datastore. (One could call an outside > > agent to request another application, but ....) > > > > Do you support request 106? > > > Yes. > > > > Do you oppose 945? > > > Not sure. > > > > At the moment, I am getting the idea you support 106, > > > but not the implication that it would support queries across > > > datastores. > > > 106 allows an application to access multiple datastores, so why would > > I think that it doesn't? > > > Note that the ability of an application to access multiple datastores > > does not imply the ability to access arbitrary datastores. Note also > > that the ability to access multiple datastores could be satisfied via > > a "datastore login" API used by the application which would be as > > secure as anything by the platform before the application starts. > > (Both schemes can be exploited by malicious code. Both are only as > > secure as the platform's login.) > > > > I am also understanding that you oppose the data > > > segregation from 945 because you think it doesn't serve a purpose. > > > I'm skeptical of 945 because it's a lot of mechanism. There are many > > ways to get data segregation using the existing partitioning. > > > > This is despite the fact that the entire security architecture of GAE > > > is based on trustable external authentication, data partitioning, > > > mapping that data partition to the authenticated entity, and not > > > allowing cross data store queries. > > > The GAE security architecture is not based on "not allowing cross data > > store queries". It's based on authenticated access to partitioned > > datastores, which is a very different thing. One could have > > authenticated access to partitioned datastores AND cross datastore > > queries. One could have authenticated access to choice of partitioned > > datastore but not have cross datastore queries. One have > > authenticated access to choice of partitioned datastores and allow > > cross datastore queries. One could even have an "authenticated > > choice" mechanism that allowed cross datastore queries for some > > datastores and not others. > > > > Are you saying the current GAE security architecture is wrong? > > > No. > > > > Or just that they should get rid of the data partitioning to deliver > > > feature 106? > > > No. > > > On Dec 26, 5:50 am, hawkett <hawk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Huh? You were requesting the ability to spawn a new datastore and to > > > > have the login scheme for a given pile of application code pick the > > > > datastore. The above is about methods for separating datastores and > > > > whether the method for separating them should depend on how the > > > > datastore is chose > > > > I assume you are talking about this statement from my first post? - > > > > 'The system spawns a virtual instance of the app - or at least allows > > > mapping a single datastore partition to the authenticated entity. You > > > coudl extend it by allowing multiple datastores per authenticated > > > entity and choosing the appropriate one at authentication time.' > > > > I haven't mentioned application code at all. If you have interpreted > > > 'the system'' to mean my application code, then I think you are being > > > disingenuous. What's the point of a feature request for my own > > > application code? The feature request has the term 'data segregation' > > > in its title, and doesn't include the proposed extension (as this > > > would add significant additional complexity). Anyway, when I request > > > functionality in 'the system' in a GAE feature request, I am talking > > > about GAE, not my own application code. If you're talking about some > > > other statement I made, then please say what it is. > > > > > With no post-login check, the application runs using whatever > > > > datastore the login procedure finds acceptable. > > > > Yes, it does. This is not our application code, and we trust it. If > > > you don't trust it, modify it or choose a different authentication > > > mechanism that you do trust. > > > > > If the login > > > > procedure fails or the datastore layer serves up the wrong datastore, > > > > the application still does its thing. > > > > Raise and fix the bug in the authentication/db layer. > > > > What is your actual position Andy? Do you support request 106? Do > > > you oppose 945? At the moment, I am getting the idea you support 106, > > > but not the implication that it would support queries across > > > datastores. I am also understanding that you oppose the data > > > segregation from 945 because you think it doesn't serve a purpose. > > > This is despite the fact that the entire security architecture of GAE > > > is based on trustable external authentication, data partitioning, > > > mapping that data partition to the authenticated entity, and not > > > allowing cross data store queries. Are you saying the current GAE > > > security architecture is wrong? Or just that they should get rid of > > > the data partitioning to deliver feature 106? If this is your > > > position, then it seems totally unsustainable to me. > > > > On Dec 24, 11:45 pm, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > >> You're hoping that the partitioning for a given datastore depends on > > > > >> how google allows access to said > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
