Le 15/03/13 10:33, Denis Gervalle a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
2013/3/14 Denis Gervalle <[email protected]>
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]
wrote:
Hi Denis,
Le 14/03/13 22:59, Denis Gervalle a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi devs,
We have a new (component based) authorization module since a while
now,
and I think 5.0 is the perfect time to introduce it as the default
right
service. First, I simply propose to change the default in xwiki.cfg:
xwiki.authentication.**rightsclass=org.xwiki.**security.authorization.**
internal.**XWikiCachingRightService
(Later, I propose that we deprecate that bridge and that we create a
friendly (xwiki oriented) interface over the more generic
org.xwiki.security.**authorization.**AuthorizationManager. But leave
this for a
later proposal.)
So this vote is about changing the default in xwiki.cfg before 5.0M2.
pros:
- improved performance, since the new service is using caching
techniques
and a single page load required lots of calls to it.
- ability for extension to add new rights
- define right declaratively
- separate method for checking and verifying right (throws opposed
to
boolean return)
- fix some long waiting bugs like XWIKI-5174, XWIKI-6987, as well
as
some unstated ones
Also XWIKI-4550
- possibility to easily solve issues like XWIKI-4491
- no more admin right per default
- being in good position to improve it and release dependencies to
oldcore for security matters.
- possibility for third party to adapt the right settler to their
special
needs (right decision is plugable)
- a consistant right evaluation with very few exception that could
be
explained and documented
cons:
- no more admin right per default, but since we have DW, the
initial
setup is no more a problem, and advanced users may use superadmin.
- groups are only checked from the user wiki, not from the accessed
entity wiki.
This sound like a big regression.
Can you explicit more ? Does this mean that adding a global (main wiki)
user in a local group has no effect ?
You have got it right. This could be improved, and help is welcome. What
happen is that the user groups are evaluated independently to the
targeted
entity, and therefore only in the user wiki.
I admit this is a regression, but I have not cross lots of use case like
those. The simple display in admin of Global user in local Group is even
broken (double xwiki:xwiki:...) so this does not seems to me a common
usage.
You may provide access to global group in a local wiki to achieve the
same
goals.
This looks to be indeed a big regression. It's quite a common use case to
have only global users and to create groups in the local wiki that refer to
local users.
^^^^^^^^
I suppose you means global users here.
IMHO, having user managed by a separate entity (global admin), and these
same individual users grouped by another one (local admin) is very uncommon
delegation of authority to me (but I may be wrong). On the other hand,
having a local admin providing access to local ressources to global group
(and potentially some global users) makes more sense. In that way, the same
admin manage its users, and group its users, and the local admin trust the
global admin to know its users.
That said, I am not against any improvement on the way it works, if it is a
common use case (moreover used by workspace), we should obviously support
it. However, I am convince that evaluating groups based on both the user
and the targeted entity is not easily achievable and conduct to very
complex partial caching.
I have currently not implemented in the security module anything that would
cause all wikis to be scanned,
Can you explain why we would need to do that in this case ?
Jérôme.
and I would really like to avoid that to
happen. So, it will be difficult to avoid partial caching, but we need to
limit that at the higher level, the subwiki. This would allow to had only
scan both the wiki of the user and the target entry to consider our cache
valid. It means subwiki will be unable to share groups (I do not think this
has ever worked), but it will keep performance on large farm.
This would really need to be fixed sooner than later otherwise I know
plenty of projects for which migration to 5.0 would be almost impossible
I will need helps to achieve that for 5.0
This would really need to be fixed sooner than later otherwise I know
plenty of projects for which migration to 5.0 would be almost impossible
I think even Workspaces is using that so XEM by default would fail with
this.
Ludovic
Jérôme
- may exhibit some other minor differences compare to existing
implementation (but mostly consistency fixes)
- test could be improved, critical part (right, settler, data
structure,
cache) are covered at almost 100%, api at 60%, this is probably
better
than the old right service
- documentation should be improved, but this is not worse than the
old
one anyway
Since I use the new module in all my production servers for several
months
with success, and I really think that if we do not do it now we will
never
go ahead, here is my big +1
WDYT ?
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
______________________________**_________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Ludovic Dubost
Founder and CEO
Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/
XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
