Hi Asanka,

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Asanka Abeyweera <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Pamod,
>
> With the new model[1] we are planning to implement, dead letter queue will
> be similar to a normal queue. Therefore It will be possible to subscribe to
> a dead letter queue. Authorization will be managed similarly to how we do
> with normal queues, i.e. admins can alter subscribing permissions depending
> on the requirement.
>

+1 for the approach. Only the difference of a Dead letter queue will be

1. No publishers can publish to that queue.
2. It can be only bound to direct exchange (considered as a queue) (binding
is done OOB)
3. No create permissions. It is created OOB.

>
> [1] "[MB4] Dead Letter Exchange implementation" @architecture
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Pamod Sylvester <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Waruna,
>>
>> In this case how will we handle messages which are in DLC ?
>>
>> Are we going to give the option to subscribe to DLC ? (currently we have
>> restricted it). However, that will be a drawback given the queue owner will
>> not have access to it's own messages which are in the DLC
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pamod
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Himasha Guruge <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Waruna,
>>>
>>> Have we decided which permissions will be allocated for a user  by
>>> default when creating a queue/topic? Are we going to consider ownership
>>> concept for this, that was discussed in C5 permission model? [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yosWL_kTxUWFukcoU7DtrtZd
>>> RuiK0ghySs96u4lfUHU/edit#heading=h.81aqdsft1abw
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Himasha
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Waruna Jayaweera <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Reattach the missing diagram .
>>>>
>>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Waruna
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Waruna Jayaweera <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Message broker requires authorization model to access control of
>>>>> resources like Topics/Queues based on user groups . This is to provide the
>>>>> initial design for $Subject.
>>>>> Example use case would be as follows. We have three user groups (
>>>>> roles) A , B  and manager and two topics T1 and T2. We need to restrict
>>>>> users in group as below.
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. T1 can be subscribed by only A and publish by only B
>>>>>    2. T2 can be subscribed by only B and publish by only A
>>>>>    3. Manager users can subscribe and publish to any topic but only
>>>>>    subscribe queue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Following entities can be identified.
>>>>>
>>>>> *User groups:*  A ,B and manager
>>>>> *Resources *: T1 and T2
>>>>> *Resource Groups *: Topic, Queue
>>>>> *Actions*: subscribe, publish,view  etc.
>>>>> *Permission*: resource+actions
>>>>>
>>>>> We can represent the permissions using binary form  mappings with
>>>>> resource and user group. These permissions can be defined per resource or
>>>>> globally as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Per Resource*
>>>>>
>>>>> Resource
>>>>>
>>>>> User Group
>>>>>
>>>>> Actions
>>>>>
>>>>> Permission
>>>>>
>>>>> publish
>>>>>
>>>>> subscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> T1
>>>>>
>>>>> A
>>>>>
>>>>> 0
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 01
>>>>>
>>>>> T2
>>>>>
>>>>> B
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 0
>>>>>
>>>>> 10
>>>>>
>>>>> *Global Permission*
>>>>>
>>>>> Resource Type
>>>>>
>>>>> User Group
>>>>>
>>>>> Actions
>>>>>
>>>>> Permission
>>>>>
>>>>> publish
>>>>>
>>>>> subscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> Topic
>>>>>
>>>>> admin
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 11
>>>>>
>>>>> Queue
>>>>>
>>>>> admin
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 0
>>>>>
>>>>> 10
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Permission will be stored in the database similarly as of  [1].  Following
>>>>> figure shows the proposed implementation for $subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Connection handler can fetch the mb resource permissions mappings from
>>>>> database and user groups information from underlying user store manager.
>>>>> Authorized users can add permissions to groups using permission api. Each
>>>>> resource can have own way of handling permission. As an example in
>>>>> hierarchical  topic scenario, if given user group has permission to top
>>>>> level topic, will be granted the permission to lower level topic structure
>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the initial design for permission model and We will schedule a
>>>>> design review to further discussion .Your suggestions are highly
>>>>> appreciated!
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] [Architecture] [APIM][C5] API Manager
>>>>> entities(APIs/Applications/Docs etc..) permission model and group
>>>>> sharing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Waruna
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Waruna Lakshitha Jayaweera
>>>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>>>> WSO2 Inc; http://wso2.com
>>>>> phone: +94713255198 <+94%2071%20325%205198>
>>>>> http://waruapz.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Waruna Lakshitha Jayaweera
>>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>>> WSO2 Inc; http://wso2.com
>>>> phone: +94713255198 <+94%2071%20325%205198>
>>>> http://waruapz.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Himasha Guruge
>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>> WS*O2* *Inc.*
>>> Mobile: +94 777459299 <077%20745%209299>
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Pamod Sylvester *
>>
>> *WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com <http://wso2.com>*
>> cell: +94 77 7779495 <+94%2077%20777%209495>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Asanka Abeyweera
> Associate Technical Lead
> WSO2 Inc.
>
> Phone: +94 712228648
> Blog: a5anka.github.io
>
> <https://wso2.com/signature>
>



-- 
*Hasitha Abeykoon*
Associate Technical Lead; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com
*cell:* *+94 719363063*
*blog: **abeykoon.blogspot.com* <http://abeykoon.blogspot.com>
_______________________________________________
Architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture

Reply via email to