Hi Ruwan,
I think sharing assets across tenants is something which better be solved
at carbon User/Tenant level. This is going to be valuable feature for AppM
tenant sharing too.

Lets say Tenant A shares an asset to Tenant B, and say User A1 is
authenticated to Tenant A. Then the security/access control mechanism in
carbon should do this.

   1. User A1-> Access Tenant Space B -> search for assets available.
   2. Tenant Space B searches assets which is granted to Tenant A.

The authenticated user will be given a Token (T1). When he access tenant
space B, he will be given another Token T2 created from T1.  This prevents
spoofing inside tenant B. Tenant B can at anytime check the validity of the
user A1 with the Token T2.

Optionally there can be role mapping between tenant A and B roles, which
will be done by respective Admins. (Communication between admins will be
offline.) Then we would be able to restrict access based on
role/permissions too.

WDYT?

Cheers,
Ruwan


On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Bhathiya Jayasekara <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Ruwan,
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Ruwan Yatawara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This is to update everyone on the implementation we are in the process of
>> doing to share the device types between tenants.
>>
>> *Objective :* A particular division of a organization (tenant) needs to
>> be able to declare a device type in the platform that needs to be made
>> available for other divisions of the organization (other tenants)
>>
>> Ayyoob, has already done the changes in the CDMF layer to make the device
>> types sharable between tenants (it is a matter of establishing a
>> relationship via DB entries). But the problem arises when it comes to
>> displaying these shared device types using the Enterprise Store, as it uses
>> the registry to persist the rxt instances (As of now there is one RXT
>> called DeviceType and all the other device types that we declare happen to
>> be instances of it.).
>>
>> In the registry, each tenant's space is their own, and there does not
>> exist a common location in which artifact that needs to be shared between
>> tenants, can be stored in the registry.
>>
>> Given the requirement and the current limitations, we are going to adopt
>> an approach similar to the external stores feature [1] in APIM to share
>> artifacts between tenants.
>>
>> Following this approach, basically if tenant foo.com needs to share his
>> device types with bar.com, in foo.com's registry there would need to
>> exist a file that contains credentials to bar.com's publisher component.
>> So when foo.com wants to push a device type to bar.com, said device type
>> will be added to bar.com's registry using the credentials provided
>> earlier. In the device type that gets added it will be indicated that the
>> provider is foo.com.
>>
>> This would solve the problem of sharing artifacts between specific
>> tenants. However, sharing artifacts between all tenants is not possible
>> with this scenario (Not that it is not possible, but its rather cumbersome)
>>
>
> AFAIU, it's impossible rather than cumbersome, because you may not know
> about all the tenants. However in any case, better to have another
> approach. So, how about using a common space in ST? You can access ST
> registry by changing the tenant flow. If you have already considered this
> and thrown it away, I'd like to know the reason.
>
> Thanks,
> Bhathiya
>
>
>>
>> Please feel free to share your thoughts on the matter.
>>
>>
>> [1] -
>> https://docs.wso2.com/display/AM180/Publish+to+multiple+external+API+stores
>>
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>>
>> Ruwan Yatawara
>>
>> Senior Software Engineer,
>> WSO2 Inc.
>>
>> email : [email protected]
>> mobile : +94 77 9110413
>> blog : http://ruwansrants.blogspot.com/
>> www: :http://wso2.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Bhathiya Jayasekara*
> *Senior Software Engineer,*
> *WSO2 inc., http://wso2.com <http://wso2.com>*
>
> *Phone: +94715478185 <%2B94715478185>*
> *LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhathiyaj
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhathiyaj>*
> *Twitter: https://twitter.com/bhathiyax <https://twitter.com/bhathiyax>*
> *Blog: http://movingaheadblog.blogspot.com
> <http://movingaheadblog.blogspot.com/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>
>


-- 

*Ruwan Abeykoon*
*Architect,*
*WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com <http://wso2.com/> *
*lean.enterprise.middleware.*

email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture

Reply via email to