Hi,
Provide native Integrations of pac4j with shiro, jwt , oauth, feature parity with other security frameworks like spring , spring security and others in the .net c# world. On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:23 PM +0530, "Benjamin Marwell" <[email protected]> wrote: I want to throw in JSON web tokens (JWT). It is a mess to work with them right now. JWT can also be very complicated. They can only hold Authentication data, or they can hold roles, or even permission (if it is not getting too long).I settled to create another realm. If the JWT contains EVERYTHING, the other realms must be skipped (that's the whole point). If it does only contain authc, there must be a possibility to search either the other realms or a special authz-only-realm. The latter is not possible atm because AuthorizingRealms extend AuthenticatingRealm. It is not hard to create a JWT Authc realm, though. As the Token class is different, login will just skip the JWT realm. … and there is so much more to it! Am Mo., 6. Apr. 2020 um 07:27 Uhr schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]>: Yeah, it seems to be the same indeed. Regards JB > Le 5 avr. 2020 à 13:38, Francois Papon <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > I found this one: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SHIRO/Version+2+Brainstorming > > It seems to be the same :) > > regards, > > François > [email protected] > > Le 05/04/2020 à 13:32, Brian Demers a écrit : >> This one? >> >> https://github.com/apache/shiro-site/blob/master/version-2-brainstorming.md >> >> -Brian >> >>> On Apr 4, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I wrote a whole wiki page on 2.0 design changes, but I can't find it now 🤔 >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 5:17 PM Brian Demers <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Off the top of my head we have (I'm sure there is more, but ): >>>> >>>> * Package name / artifact structure cleanup (breaking change, but minor >>>> impact) >>>> * Remove CAS modules >>>> * Replace deprecated code (or move to an implementation/private package, >>>> for anything still needed) >>>> * Support javax.annotation.security annotations (or whatever they are now >>>> under Eclipse). These annotations work a little different from the Shiro >>>> ones. >>>> * Update to Jakarta dependencies (or figure out a way to work with both, >>>> abstracting the HTTP logic), bigger lift (or maybe two different 'web' >>>> packages?) >>>> >>>> The Jakarta ones have me a little worried though, I think many of the >>>> current Shiro users would have a hard time making the switch anytime soon. >>>> Which could kill the adoption of a 2.0. >>>> We could (and probably should) abstract the web specifics out in order to >>>> support the _current_ API, Jakarta EE, and other non-servlet stacks >>>> (reactive). >>>> That said, it's a likely a bunch of work (and again, I'm guessing most of >>>> the user base would use the current API), so this _could_ be a 3.0 item. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:29 AM Francois Papon >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to start a thread about the next major release: 2.0.0. >>>>> I think we should move forward on it and only fix bug on the 1.x branches. >>>>> >>>>> There is always some issues related to the version in Jira: >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SHIRO/versions/12315455 >>>>> >>>>> We can move also the issues list from the 1.6.0 to the 2.0.0: >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SHIRO/versions/12346916 >>>>> >>>>> I noticed an existing branch about api changes on github: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/shiro/tree/2.0-api-design-changes >>>>> >>>>> I propose to update master to 2.0.0-SNAPHOT and create a 1.5.x branch >>>>> (from tag shiro-root-1.5.2) for maintenance. >>>>> >>>>> Because of some api break, package refactor, deprecated modules or >>>>> components, we also should start a migration guide in the website. >>>>> >>>>> It's also time for anyone to bring some ideas about the next Shiro >>>>> features/improvements, feel free to share :) >>>>> >>>>> We could start a formal vote to validate the plan. >>>>> >>>>> Feedback are welcome! >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> -- >>>>> François >>>>> [email protected]
