Le 15 févr. 2018 01:35, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit :
I understand there's kind of a meta conversation going on that all roads and discussions need to end at there being something to put a microprofile-jwt git repo. I wave a white flag and gently request a respite from that as I don't want everything I write to be read as if I'm attempting to steer for or against. I'm 100% supportive of reuse. And there could be something of value to reuse in the end. But at this moment if there was a microprofile-jwt git, even if that repo was in TomEE, I'm not sold at this point there would be enough code there to justify it. I'd probably lean towards getting a prototype done with the mutual understanding this part of the discussion is still open. Once we have code in hand, we can have a more informed discussion and circle back to reuse. > On Feb 14, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote: > > If you want to have JWT working for ALL EE things then it's not MicroProfile-JWT anymore, isn't? > It would be much more. Not bad of course, but still way beyond of what MicroProfile-JWT defines. Chapter 7 "Mapping MP-JWT Tokens to Java EE Container APIs" defines about 11 different integration points across JAX-RS, EJB, Servlets, JACC etc. As only JAX-RS is a required part of a MicroProfile server and the other parts are optional, at least 7 out of the 11 integration points are also optional. There are tests for much of them in the MicroProfile JWT TCK. The tests are also optional, but we'd definitely want to run and pass them as well as contribute to them if they are incomplete. If the spec is incomplete and we did miss an EE integration point, definitely want to update the spec to cover it. Scott and I and the other folks who worked on the spec did our best to try and enumerate the ones we could think of, but we may have missed some. > Oh and I assume it does also include a way to _create_ JsonWebTokens, right? The token creation would be done by an OAuth provider, which is outside the MP JWT specification. The specification does have requirements that define what the token should look like, but they're all very minimal so that we could be as compatible as possible with as many existing OAuth provider implementations as possible. Effectively it says the JWT must be signed with an RSA private key the OAuth Provider owns and assumes the MicroProfile server has been given the public key. How that public key is passed is also outside the specification, but generally, it'll be on disk or sitting in the docker image somewhere. > * JSON-P on the json side. Agree. This is definitely mandatory to implement the MP JWT spec as claims can be injected as JsonObject, etc. > * crypto: Whether to use the JCE built-in crypto or an external lib should be pluggable. We just need to add a smallish SPI with a few methods. Agree to disagree on this one :) JCE is an abstraction with two well known impls (OpenJDK and BouncyCastle). It's 3-4 lines to check a signature, so not much complexity to abstract. > * JsonWebToken and a way to get 'the' JWT for a single Request. That might be a provider interface or a @RequestScoped CDI bean. MP JWT spec requires there to be a dependent scoped producer for JsonWebToken. The bean getting JsonWebToken injected must be RequestScoped. Currently section 7.1.3 forbids injection into beans that are not @RequestScoped. Any waynto have a fixed spec saying it is not portable to not do so? Having a deployment exception for a so common case is very rude and not justified technically. Also using provider as a woraround is not mainstream and generally way too slow. Not that supporting CharSequence can be a smooth workaround for app scope ;). With that in mind, I would probably implement JsonWebToken as an immutable class -- i.e. get the token, then create the JsonWebToken and track that in the request. So ultimately the producer of JsonWebToken needs to get the token from the request rather than the JsonWebToken implementation itself. It is backed by jsonp so immutable by definition no? Not yet discussed, but part of the spec is Claims can be injected as any java type using the same conversion rules as MP Config. Xbean-reflect has a large set of code for java-to-string conversion. I suspect geronimo-config as it's own implementation of java-to-string conversion. There's probably some opportunity for reuse consolidation there. Potentially even an option for a "Conversion" spec. Andres was talking about it at the last JCP EC event in London. His JSR-377 (Desktop Application Framework) apparently has similar needs. Makes sense (and without any "context" please, this pollutes config spec and makes it sadly not that portable :(). -David
