Hi Brad, No worries - I didn't feel like it was 'noise' at all. It is always good to brainstorm and think of better ways to support different behaviors. Some work and are added, some don't make it. It is a valuable thing for a community, so thanks for your feedback :)
Cheers, Les On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Brad Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Les is correct that my first and second questions were exact opposites. > Jeremy answered my first question and the solution is completely > satisfactory for handling the weird condition that occurs only in devel > mode. > > My second question came up when I realized what Subject.logout() is > discarding the "remember me" cookie as a side effect of logout. I wanted a > way to have the user "de-authenticate" without being forgotten. Upon further > review I guess it makes little sense to do this. So I withdraw my request > and apologize for the all the noise. > > Thanks, > > Brad > > > Jeremy Haile wrote: > >> Brad, >> >> My main concern is altering the Subject interface for what may be a rare >> case and one that has a pretty easy workaround (just invalidate the >> session). I think that usually when a user logs out, they expect their >> remembered identity to be logged out as well. Currently, logout() marks >> the user unauthenticated, forgets their remembered identity, and ends >> their session - which is the behavior of most web apps that I'm familiar >> with. >> >> As Les mentioned, I'd love to hear more detail about your use case. If >> this seems to be a common case, then we could definitely consider adding >> the functionality to Subject. >> Jeremy >> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:29:32 -0400, "Les Hazlewood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> >> >>> Hi Brad, >>> >>> Could you please summarize the exact end result that you're trying to >>> achieve? I'm a tad confused at the moment. Your first question was to >>> see >>> if the remembered identity could be explicitly forgotten and/or ignored >>> after a fresh DB install during development. The second question asks if >>> you can logout a user but still retain the remember me identity, which is >>> almost an exact opposite of the first question :) >>> >>> Perhaps if you could explain exactly what you're trying to achieve, then >>> it >>> would be easier for me to think of how this might apply to our API. >>> >>> I'm a little hesitant to alter the Subject interface (at least at the >>> moment) because this is one of the very core interfaces of JSecurity, >>> used >>> everywhere by everyone (in JSecurity's 'guts' as well as end-users. I >>> just >>> try to think long and hard before doing these kinds of things. >>> >>> So, in getting clarification, I might be able to say "Oh, this is easy, >>> we >>> could modify some behavior in the SecurityManager implementation to >>> achieve >>> what you want" (template methods or whatever), which would be much more >>> digestible than changing such a critical API interface. >>> >>> I'm definitely willing to try to make your life easy, I'm just confused >>> at >>> the moment by the polarity of the two questions ;) >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Les >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Brad Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I've been trying to use subject.getSession().stop() but I seem to be >>>> having >>>> some problems with simply creating a new session. I'm not sure exactly >>>> what >>>> the problems are (perhaps Grails or some other part of my framework has >>>> manipulated the session in some way the gets lost when the session is >>>> stopped.) >>>> >>>> Anyway, the more I think about it the more I think this approach is >>>> really >>>> taking a very long way around. Why not add a parameter to >>>> Subject.logout() >>>> that gets passed to (Default) SecurityManager so that >>>> DefaultSecurityManager.rememberMeLogout() isn't called? Would this >>>> work? It >>>> seems much cleaner and direct than trying to kill and create a session >>>> because we don't want the subject to be remembered. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Brad >>>> >>>> >>>> Brad Whitaker wrot >>>> >>>> I'll let you continue the implementation discussion on the other >>>> thread, >>>> >>>> >>>>> but will add my two cents from a user's perspective: >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to see a method on the Subject that can logout the subject out >>>>> but preserves "remember me". This could be accomplished with either a >>>>> new >>>>> method or a new parameter to logout(). Subject just seems like the >>>>> right >>>>> place to put this functionality (although I don't understand the >>>>> implementation issues). >>>>> >>>>> Les Hazlewood wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think it might be more 'correct' to do this in JSecurity via >>>>>> subject.getSession().stop() method instead. If in an HTTP >>>>>> environment, >>>>>> HttpSession.invalidate() will be called on your behalf. If not using >>>>>> HTTP >>>>>> container sessions (for whatever reason), it also does the appropriate >>>>>> invalidation on the underlying implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>> But this surfaces an interesting question for the development team: >>>>>> >>>>>> If someone calls subject.getSession().stop(), should they be able to >>>>>> then >>>>>> immediately call subject.getSession() and have it return a brand new >>>>>> session? >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently that doesn't happen. Any calls on that returned session >>>>>> would >>>>>> throw an InvalidSessionException. Going back to the desire to prevent >>>>>> these >>>>>> exceptions from occurring when possible, isn't it a good idea to >>>>>> create a >>>>>> new one? >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't think of any reasons at the moment to not allow a new session >>>>>> to >>>>>> be >>>>>> created as described. I like the idea of making this possible. What >>>>>> do >>>>>> you >>>>>> guys think? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, the way JSecurity works an explicit logout removes the >>>>>>> "remember >>>>>>> me" >>>>>>> cookie. A session timeout will of course not remove the remember me >>>>>>> cookie. >>>>>>> So if the user doesn't log out and their session times out then when >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> go back to the site they are remembered. However, if the explicitly >>>>>>> log >>>>>>> out >>>>>>> and return to the site, they will have to re-authenticate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to simply un-authenticate them, but not remove the >>>>>>> remember >>>>>>> me, >>>>>>> you could just invalidate their current HTTP session by calling >>>>>>> HttpSession.invalidate(), but don't call Subject.logout(). Their >>>>>>> next >>>>>>> request would start a new session which would be remembered, but not >>>>>>> authenticated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope this helps! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeremy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Brad Whitaker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the response -- I didn't realize that Subject.logout() >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> remove the remember me cookies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This behavior surprises me a little bit and leads to a different >>>>>>>> question: >>>>>>>> is there a way to "un-authenticate" a user? It seems it would >>>>>>>> valuable >>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>> able to log a user out but still remember them. Am I missing this in >>>>>>>> the API >>>>>>>> or does this capability not currently exist? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brad >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeremy Haile wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey Brad, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The usual way of forcing JSecurity to "forget" a subject is to call >>>>>>>>> Subject.logout() - this should remove any remember me cookies as >>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could auto-logout subjects in your development >>>>>>>>> environment upon >>>>>>>>> first access? You could also just bookmark the /logout URL and >>>>>>>>> click >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> bookmark when you start a new development session. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This would be difficult to do on the server side (i.e. without a >>>>>>>>> web >>>>>>>>> request from a browser), since it involves actually clearing the >>>>>>>>> cookie from >>>>>>>>> a user's machine. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any ideas about how JSecurity could >>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>> this process easier. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jeremy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Brad Whitaker wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it possible to force JSecurity to "forget" a subject that has >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> previously been remembered? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is an issue for me only in "development" mode and shouldn't >>>>>>>>>> occur >>>>>>>>>> in a production environment. The problem is that I often start a >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> session with an empty user database but the browser comes to the >>>>>>>>>> site >>>>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>>> cookie. I end up getting a Principal that I don't know. I would >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> discard the cookie at this point. Is this possible? Or is there a >>>>>>>>>> better way >>>>>>>>>> to deal with this issue (other than clearing the cache on the >>>>>>>>>> browser)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Brad >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> > >
