Hi Les,

Thanks for your response. I created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KI-76

I'll checkout the changes you mentioned and give them a shot. If some
ideas popup in my head regarding the SecureRemoteInvocationFactory I'll
submit them with patches to the mailinglist.

Regards,

Jasper

On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 12:04 -0400, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> Oops - sorry - accidentally hit send prematurely.
> 
> But to continue - I've updated the SecureRemoteInvocationFactory to
> take into account some other scenarios in which the user might be
> calling the SessionManager but might not have a session ID yet.
> 
> But I think it is still geared a little toward environments that have
> already established a session on the server.  Our original use case is
> that an application could be launched via Java Web Start, in which
> case there is already a session established.  Naturally this isn't
> good enough for remote apps that don't launch this way ;)
> 
> Could you please open a Jira issue so that I can add this
> functionality for 1.0?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Les
> 
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Les Hazlewood
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>         Hi Jasper,
>         
>         Thanks for the kind words - that's always encouraging.
>         
>         And you're right - the system in place today expects a session
>         to be established already.  But there is encouraging news :)
>         I too came across this same problem and altered the code base
>         (in SVN trunk) to better handle this scenario.  I've updated
>         the SecureRemoteInvocationFactory
>         
>         
>         
>         On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Jasper Siepkes
>         <[email protected]> wrote:
>                 Hi all!
>                 
>                 First of all my complements for a job well done with
>                 Apache Ki. I've
>                 recently 'discovered' it and I must say its a pleasure
>                 to work with. I
>                 never really disliked JAAS or anything but Apache Ki
>                 just feels less
>                 constraining.
>                 
>                 I do however have a question about Apache Ki (ie.
>                 JSecurity 0.90),
>                 Spring and RMI. I have a Java Swing client which uses
>                 Spring to
>                 communicate via RMI with a server application (which
>                 consists out of
>                 OSGi, Spring DM and Apache Ki). The Server application
>                 exposes an
>                 interface over RMI called CoreService which offers
>                 methods secured by,
>                 you guessed it, Apache Ki :-). The RMI communication
>                 part works fine.
>                 The problem is that I want the client to call the
>                 login(String username,
>                 char[] password) method on the CoreService (on the
>                 server) to
>                 authenticate the session. From what I can tell this is
>                 not possible with
>                 the standard SecureRemoteInvocationFactory in Apache
>                 Ki since it expects
>                 the session to have been established. Calling a remote
>                 method over RMI
>                 without an established session makes the
>                 SecureRemoteInvocationFactory
>                 throw an exception at me because there is no
>                 session(id).
>                 
>                 The Swing Webstart / Spring example seems to confirm
>                 this; The session
>                 gets established by Spring webflow before the actual
>                 Java Swing client
>                 is (web)started and the session ID is then passed
>                 along to the Java
>                 client.
>                 
>                 Am I missing something ? Or is there a (security)
>                 reason why this can't
>                 be done out of the box ?
>                 
>                 Regards,
>                 
>                 Jasper
>                 
>         
>         
> 

Reply via email to