Hi Shay - no, you don't have to implement Permission related
aspects. You can just use Strings, and JSecurity's default
PermissionResolver will translate those Strings into
WildcardPermission objects (http://www.jsecurity.org/api/org/jsecurity/authz/permission/WildcardPermission.html
).
You would only need to implement your own Permission class (or
subclass WildcardPermission) if you wanted type-safety. I should
update the Spring/Hibernate application to do this. Please add a
Jira issue if you'd like to see type-safe subclasses - just so we
have it tagged and not forgotton.
Cheers,
Les
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Shay Matasaro
<[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys.
so its up to me to implement all permissions related aspects
including wildcards , and instance levels ones, seems a bit tricky ?
I think that the end goal for a security framework should include
top to bottom interfaces and *Object *data model (definitely not
table schemes , just class and interface definitions) , this
approach would still allow developers to wire the framework to any
data storage, but the model will enforce proper architecture.
for an experienced developer some of these design decisions , might
look simple , but junior and intermediate devs require some
guidelines especially when doing first time implementations.
Thanks,
Shay
Les Hazlewood wrote:
Hi Shay,
Daniel is correct. Data models (users, groups, roles, permissions,
etc, etc) vary widely across applications - JSecurity can't, and
shouldn't, expect or enforce data model APIs on framework end-users.
So, the Realms perform simple translation from an application's
data model to what JSecurity expects, in the form of
AuthenticationInfo and AuthorizationInfo return values that
JSecurity does understand.
When writing an application, I do all CRUD operations for security
data - users, roles, etc in a different place - e.g. a
UserManager. The Realm implementation just delegates to the
UserManager (or similar) to get the data necessary for JSecurity,
then transforms it as necessary, and returns it. It stays read-
only while the UserManager does read/write/update.
Your Realm can interact with a datasource directly too if you want
- it is up to you. I just choose to delegate since the UserManager
already has a DAO that interacts with the datasource - no need for
me to use the datasource APIs in two different places. But it is
still your choice dependening on your needs/desires.
If you want a head-start in creating your own data model that will
work very well, either with or without JSecurity, take a look at
the Spring/Hibernate sample application that ships with JSecurity's
distribution. It has User, Role, and Permission objects all
queried/saved by Hibernate. Even if you don't use Hibernate, the
data model in that sample app will give you ideas.
Cheers,
Les
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Daniel J. Lauk <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello, Shay.
AFAIK the JSecurity framework only provides interfaces for
"consuming"
(=reading) information.
(Side note: I'm not sure, if the DAO pattern considers write
access in
the first place)
Of course, when you write your implementation of the
org.jsecurity.realm.Realm interface you can add such
functionality to
your implementing class.
Cheers,
DJ
2009/2/26 Shay Matasaro <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
> Hi Les,
>
> Thank you for the prompt reply.
>
> i have been reviewing all Realm implementations , but I am
obviously missing
> something , since implementing a custom realm only requires
implementing 2
> DB queries.
>
> what i don't see , is where does the DB persistence take place ,
i.e.
> persisting new users, roles, groups , permissions; I assume that
i need to
> implements all of these, by extending existing classes.
>
> do i have to implement my own token, user, account, role, group
, etc..?
> or are there specific extension point that i can hook into ,
without
> overriding the whole model?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shay
>
>
>
> Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> Hi Shay,
>>
>> JSecurity can use any data source - it does that by wrapping
access to
>> that data source in a Realm implementation:
>>
>> http://www.jsecurity.org/api/org/jsecurity/realm/Realm.html
>>
>> A Realm is essentially a security-specific DAO, so you can
communicate
>> with any back-end you need. Check out the Sample applications
in the
>> JSecurity distribution, as well as some of the Realm
implementations here:
>>
>>
>>
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jsecurity/trunk/core/src/org/jsecurity/realm/
>>
>> Look at the text, jndi, ldap sub packages for ideas, as well as
the sample
>> applications that ship with JSecurity's distribution.
>>
>> I hope that helps!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Shay Matasaro
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I ran into JSecurity yesterday and it looks very
promising, i'd
>> like to add it to my web service application.
>>
>> The only hurdle to cross is the fact that my app uses its
own
>> "object oriented DB" ; i would therefore like to customize
>> Jsecurity to use our own data layer.
>>
>> is it possible to customize just the low-level db access ,
and
>> allow JSecurity to maintain all the great features that it
offers
>> without rewriting all aspects?
>>
>> if so what is the bare minimum list of objects and
interfaces that
>> i need to extend in order to achieve that goal (this is a
new app
>> , so i don't have to align with any existing table schema).
>>
>> To the project developers , Great Job! , the library
seems very
>> simple and easy to use, and after messing about with JAAS
for
>> awhile , i can really value simplicity.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
