Hi I think the solution without activemq.xml is great. We could make a default jars.txt a user could drop in conf/ to add all the required dependencies if it helps but putting spring is the container is not a good idea as default solution. In particular for this case where we know how to get it properly done.
Side note: would be great to be able to do a network of brokers between tomee instances too. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-06-03 10:23 GMT+02:00 Marian Muller <[email protected]>: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for the insight. I think we need to take some time and discuss the > topic, before going further. > > I understand your point about the simple "built-in" solution being what its > name suggests: a simple solution for running localhost/vm-only broker. This > makes much sense! And I also believe there is a need for a deep > understanding of ActiveMQ configuration, when addressing more complex > situations. > > I think the activemq.xml file fits this description, however I also think > the Spring requirement may be a hurdle to some users. The TomEE > website mentions > the need for Spring and XBean libraries > <http://tomee.apache.org/jms-resources-and-mdb-container.html>, yet I hit > a > few issues when following the instructions: > > 1/ Adding the 5 mentioned jars (spring-* and xbean-spring) is not enough, > there is still a ClassNotFoundException > (org.apache.activemq.xbean.XBeanBrokerFactory) when using > 'xbean:file:conf/activemq.xml'. It looks like the activemq-spring jar is > also required here. > > 2/ Maybe I missed something here, but I was not able to load the > activemq.xml file using a relative path as suggested in TomEE > documentation. I just keep getting a FileNotFoundException. > > > Do you think we could improve the user experience wrt integrating the > activemq.xml configuration file ? Maybe by making this a bit clearer and > easier to get all the required dependencies ? > Adding a way to declare AMQ plugins within tomee configuration file - as > suggested by previous posts - would also make it simpler for users. > Although I agree it would be better to stick to AMQ configuration syntax. > And about point 2, did I miss something ? > > Thanks. > > -- > Marian MULLER > SERLI > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Andy Gumbrecht <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Marian, > > > > I have always been of the opinion that the default configuration is the > > simple way, and more complex scenarios need a more complex solution, > > and a really deep understanding of ActiveMQ configuration. > > > > The simple solution is seen as a localhost/vm only solution which never > > goes outside the box - The clients do not see or access the MQ directly. > > > > The complex solutions starts with your scenario - Clients should have > > remote access and authenticate (and that is a massive step, not to be > taken > > lightly). > > > > So where to address that? > > > > Romain's plugin idea works, but seems like an awful lot of work to > replace > > something that is in effect already there - > > The 'xbean:file:conf/activemq.xml'. > > > > I was also initially annoyed by the whole Spring requirement for a > > 'simple' XML file, but that's an ActiveMQ issue which we have to live > with > > if we want to configure it. > > Once you use it there really is no issue. To add all that endless > > functionality to OpenEJB is really outside the box in my opinion. A few > > megs of jars isn't really such a big issue. > > > > If you start to dig in to ActiveMQ conf (http://activemq.apache.org/ > > version-5-xml-configuration.html) then you'll understand why they maybe > > opted for the Spring XBean configuration. > > > > What is your greater picture here? Why do you want to allow remote MQ > > clients to authenticate? > > > > If we start talking about local application authentication then think > > 'TomEE cluster', then you're only going to have one ActiveMQ server > > (standalone, and maybe also a cluster) - Aligning authentication with > TomEE > > is probably not going to work. > > > > A JDBC realm could be a solution - Both servers authenticate can > > authenticate against it. > > > > But really you'd only need one ActiveMQ user/pw per application. > > > > Andy. > > > > > > On 30/05/2014 11:35, Marian Muller wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> For starters, let me introduce myself. I am Marian Muller and I work as > a > >> Java EE engineer at SERLI. As part of my job, I will dedicate some time > to > >> contributing to TomEE. > >> > >> I am working on a simpler way to configure authentication in the > embedded > >> ActiveMQ broker. Currently, you can easily start the embedded broker > using > >> just a few lines of xml: > >> > >> > >> <Resource id="MyJmsResourceAdapter" type="ActiveMQResourceAdapter"> > >>> BrokerXmlConfig = broker:(tcp://someHostName:61616) > >>> ServerUrl = vm://localhost > >>> </Resource> > >>> > >>> > >> But if you want to add authentication to the broker, you need to write > an > >> ActiveMQ xml configuration file, and - that feels a bit wrong - you need > >> to > >> add Spring and ActiveMQ libraries in TomEE! (see > >> http://tomee.apache.org/jms-resources-and-mdb-container.html) > >> > >> <Resource id="MyJmsResourceAdapter" type="ActiveMQResourceAdapter"> > >> > >>> BrokerXmlConfig = xbean:file:conf/activemq.xml > >>> ServerUrl = tcp://someHostName:61616</Resource> > >>> > >>> > >>> I looked up how the ActiveMQ embedded broker is configured and > started, > >> and > >> I think it should be possible to add an option to the resource adapter > to > >> specify basic user/password authentication. Now I am wondering what this > >> option should look like ? I see at least three possibilities: > >> > >> a) Specify a list of (username/password/groups) directly in the > >> ResourceAdapter options (in tomee.xml). This feels a bit tedious, would > >> clutter the config file and would require to define a specific syntax. > >> b) Specify the path to a file (xml? properties? ...), containing the > list > >> of (username/password/groups). This would lighten the configuration file > >> (tomee.xml) by moving away the verbose stuff. > >> c) Maybe we could reuse the existing user database from > >> conf/tomcat-users.xml ? This way we only need a single file to configure > >> all the users. > >> > >> > >> This is for the simple username/password authentication, which would use > >> ActiveMQ's SimpleAuthenticationPlugin. > >> > >> Now maybe a better way to add JMS authentication would be to reuse the > >> existing Realm, which can be configured by the users. This would > probably > >> require to write a custom ActiveMQ plugin that checks authentication > >> against the realm. But this would open much more authentication options! > >> Now, if you don't mind, I could use some pointers on how to reuse this > >> Realm, and also how to define another realm for JMS authentication (if > the > >> user wants so)? > >> To me, this feels like a better way to centralize authentication in > Tomcat > >> Realms! > >> > >> What do you think? How do you see JMS authentication? > >> Please tell me if I am going the wrong way here. > >> I could definitely use the community feedback here! :) > >> > >> Thank you. > >> -- > >> Marian MULLER > >> SERLI > >> > >> > > -- > > Andy Gumbrecht > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > [email protected] > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > > TomEE treibt Tomitribe! | http://tomee.apache.org > > > > >
