subject:"svn commit\: r1827439 \- \/ofbiz\/ofbiz\-framework\/trunk\/framework\/common\/servicedef\/services.xml"

Le 27/03/2018 à 11:38, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:

Hi Taher,

That's good questions and I'll try to build a technical perspective here
answering them one by one and as possible in chronology.

1. Changes to cookies was introduced with OFBIZ-4959. Actually it was not
really a bug rather a clean-up. The autoLogin cookies were only used by the
ecommerce component and maybe webpos. But all applications were creating
such cookies with a one year duration. They were useless until I needed
them for the "Navigate from a domain to another with automated signed in
authentication" OFBIZ-10307 feature. But even if they were safe
(httponly) then I needed them to be clean, not a one year duration (to be
as safe as possible, temporary cookies are better). So with your
suggestion[1] (thanks) I introduced the keep-autologin-cookie
attribute in ofbiz-component.xml. It's used to remove not kept cookies when
login in or out. So those cookies are only kept during a session. Also a
cookie is created when an user jumps from one application to another.
These cookies are used when navigating from a domain to another to
guarantee the safety of the user who jumps from a domain to another (unlike
my
mistake of using a request parameter initially). Note that protected
cookies (httponly) are one of the safer ways to store information, js script
can't use them[2].

No one helped you in the design, there were issues in it which I
objected to, you did not collaborate with us on the fix and just
re-committed something else and when I objected you said you're
welcome to fix it. I don't like your first solution at all (reverse
dependency which I explained at length) and I am not comfortable with
your second solution either.

What does make you uncomfortable?

2. Http redirects, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I guess it's the part
which is in OFBIZ-10307 (following CORS standard) to allow an user to
jump from a domain to another. For that I use Ajax to send a JWT token in
a HTTP header (as recommended by CORS).

I mean disabling http URLs and their switch to https (port 8080 to
8443). That old behavior was removed by you in a commit again without
community consensus or discussion, you just did it and you committed
your work. Also, look at the JIRA you provided, I only see Jacques
doing stuff in it.

After my explanations I thought it was OK, so I applied a lazy consensus

3. Authentication, for that I use the checkExternalServerLogin pre-processor
in the same vein than checkExternalLoginKey, nothing extraordinary. Just
that it check a JWT token in a HTTP header (as recommended by CORS)
rather than a request parameter. I must say that the devil is in the
technical
details (of CORS) and I'll not explain that here.

Again, you did not cooperate or consult with the community, and you
touched a core component of the system on something which is complex
and intrusive. There were questionable issues in the design here.

I have a patch waiting for review at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10307.
I'm working to have another domain to test my work before reverting the whole
and submit a new complete patch there
I don't want to break it all before having tested it on another domain. For now it works on trunk demo and I can test it. It's temporary but I'd like
to contribute this feature and let users able to test it on the trunk demo later.

I hope this helps, of course reviews are welcome.

It seems unfortunately that our reviews are not welcome. You are not
reverting and not cooperating.

What do you exactly want to revert and why? What are your propositions?

Jacques

[1] https://s.apache.org/qLGC

[2]
https://stormpath.com/blog/where-to-store-your-jwts-cookies-vs-html5-web-storage

Le 23/03/2018 à 10:22, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

I have issues with multiple decisions all around that same topic that
never got community consensus. Changes to cookies, http redirects,
authentication, and other commits that did not get a proper review
from the community. Such major design decisions need proper review IMO

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:

Le 23/03/2018 à 09:33, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 23/03/2018 à 09:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

Did you try what I said?

You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the
wrapper
in ContextFilter.java.

Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?

A thorough review of that feature is actually on my todo list since
some
time, after I have noticed some potential design issues.

Jacopo

Thanks Jacopo,

I'll also review ASAP since I seconded this feature

Jacques

BTW, forgot to say but the proposed feature at OFBIZ-10307 could be also
used locally (dropping the CORS part).
I

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-27 Thread Taher Alkhateeb

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jacques Le Roux
 wrote:
> Hi Taher,
>
> That's good questions and I'll try to build a technical perspective here
> answering them one by one and as possible in chronology.
>
> 1. Changes to cookies was introduced with OFBIZ-4959. Actually it was not
> really a bug rather a clean-up. The autoLogin cookies were only used by the
>ecommerce component and maybe webpos. But all applications were creating
> such cookies with a one year duration. They were useless until I needed
>them for the "Navigate from a domain to another with automated signed in
> authentication" OFBIZ-10307 feature. But even if they were safe
>(httponly) then I needed them to be clean, not a one year duration (to be
> as safe as possible, temporary cookies are better). So with your
>suggestion[1] (thanks) I introduced the keep-autologin-cookie 
> attribute in ofbiz-component.xml. It's used to remove not kept cookies when
>login in or out. So those cookies are only kept during a session. Also a
> cookie is created when an user jumps from one application to another.
>These cookies are used when navigating from a domain to another to
> guarantee the safety of the user who jumps from a domain to another (unlike
> my
>mistake of using a request parameter initially). Note that protected
> cookies (httponly) are one of the safer ways to store information, js script
>can't use them[2].

No one helped you in the design, there were issues in it which I
objected to, you did not collaborate with us on the fix and just
re-committed something else and when I objected you said you're
welcome to fix it. I don't like your first solution at all (reverse
dependency which I explained at length) and I am not comfortable with
your second solution either.

> 2. Http redirects, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I guess it's the part
> which is in OFBIZ-10307 (following CORS standard) to allow an user to
>jump from a domain to another. For that I use Ajax to send a JWT token in
> a HTTP header (as recommended by CORS).

I mean disabling http URLs and their switch to https (port 8080 to
8443). That old behavior was removed by you in a commit again without
community consensus or discussion, you just did it and you committed
your work. Also, look at the JIRA you provided, I only see Jacques
doing stuff in it.

> 3. Authentication, for that I use the checkExternalServerLogin pre-processor
> in the same vein than checkExternalLoginKey, nothing extraordinary. Just
>that it check a JWT token in a HTTP header (as recommended by CORS)
> rather than a request parameter. I must say that the devil is in the
> technical
>details (of CORS) and I'll not explain that here.

Again, you did not cooperate or consult with the community, and you
touched a core component of the system on something which is complex
and intrusive. There were questionable issues in the design here.

>
> I hope this helps, of course reviews are welcome.

It seems unfortunately that our reviews are not welcome. You are not
reverting and not cooperating.

>
> Jacques
>
> [1] https://s.apache.org/qLGC
>
> [2]
> https://stormpath.com/blog/where-to-store-your-jwts-cookies-vs-html5-web-storage
>
>
>
> Le 23/03/2018 à 10:22, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>
>> I have issues with multiple decisions all around that same topic that
>> never got community consensus. Changes to cookies, http redirects,
>> authentication, and other commits that did not get a proper review
>> from the community. Such major design decisions need proper review IMO
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 23/03/2018 à 09:33, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

 Le 23/03/2018 à 09:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you try what I said?
>>
>> You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the
>> wrapper
>> in ContextFilter.java.
>>
>> Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?
>
>
> A thorough review of that feature is actually on my todo list since
> some
> time, after I have noticed some potential design issues.
>
> Jacopo
>
 Thanks Jacopo,

 I'll also review ASAP since I seconded this feature

 Jacques


>>> BTW, forgot to say but the proposed feature at OFBIZ-10307 could be also
>>> used locally (dropping the CORS part).
>>> I tested it initially before crossing CORS (pun intended) and it works
>>> perfectly. It's safe because, like JSESSION, it's build upon safe
>>> AutoLogin
>>> cookies
>>> So we could use it instead of ExternalLoginKey or TomcatSSO. I did not
>>> test
>>> in a cluster environment though...
>>>
>>> Anyway just saying for now.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


Hi Taher,

That's good questions and I'll try to build a technical perspective here 
answering them one by one and as possible in chronology.

1. Changes to cookies was introduced with OFBIZ-4959. Actually it was not 
really a bug rather a clean-up. The autoLogin cookies were only used by the
   ecommerce component and maybe webpos. But all applications were creating 
such cookies with a one year duration. They were useless until I needed
   them for the "Navigate from a domain to another with automated signed in 
authentication" OFBIZ-10307 feature. But even if they were safe
   (httponly) then I needed them to be clean, not a one year duration (to be as 
safe as possible, temporary cookies are better). So with your
   suggestion[1] (thanks) I introduced the keep-autologin-cookie  
attribute in ofbiz-component.xml. It's used to remove not kept cookies when
   login in or out. So those cookies are only kept during a session. Also a 
cookie is created when an user jumps from one application to another.
   These cookies are used when navigating from a domain to another to guarantee 
the safety of the user who jumps from a domain to another (unlike my
   mistake of using a request parameter initially). Note that protected cookies 
(httponly) are one of the safer ways to store information, js script
   can't use them[2].
2. Http redirects, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I guess it's the part 
which is in OFBIZ-10307 (following CORS standard) to allow an user to
   jump from a domain to another. For that I use Ajax to send a JWT token in a 
HTTP header (as recommended by CORS).
3. Authentication, for that I use the checkExternalServerLogin pre-processor in 
the same vein than checkExternalLoginKey, nothing extraordinary. Just
   that it check a JWT token in a HTTP header (as recommended by CORS) rather 
than a request parameter. I must say that the devil is in the technical
   details (of CORS) and I'll not explain that here.

I hope this helps, of course reviews are welcome.

Jacques

[1] https://s.apache.org/qLGC

[2] 
https://stormpath.com/blog/where-to-store-your-jwts-cookies-vs-html5-web-storage


Le 23/03/2018 à 10:22, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

I have issues with multiple decisions all around that same topic that
never got community consensus. Changes to cookies, http redirects,
authentication, and other commits that did not get a proper review
from the community. Such major design decisions need proper review IMO

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux
 wrote:

Le 23/03/2018 à 09:33, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 23/03/2018 à 09:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:


Did you try what I said?

You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the
wrapper
in ContextFilter.java.

Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?


A thorough review of that feature is actually on my todo list since some
time, after I have noticed some potential design issues.

Jacopo


Thanks Jacopo,

I'll also review ASAP since I seconded this feature

Jacques



BTW, forgot to say but the proposed feature at OFBIZ-10307 could be also
used locally (dropping the CORS part).
I tested it initially before crossing CORS (pun intended) and it works
perfectly. It's safe because, like JSESSION, it's build upon safe AutoLogin
cookies
So we could use it instead of ExternalLoginKey or TomcatSSO. I did not test
in a cluster environment though...

Anyway just saying for now.

Jacques

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

BTW Paul, I forgot to thank you for your effort

Yesterday I thought about explaining the whole picture with this problem and
especially how I came there.

It's now obvious to me but I understand that a summary would help everybody. I
remember Taher was expressing his frustration about that.

Jacques

Le 27/03/2018 à 08:10, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Hi Paul,

Inline...

Le 27/03/2018 à 03:42, Paul Foxworthy a écrit :

I hadn't read through OFBIZ-9833 until this morning. My understanding is
now:

- Tomcat SSO is a red herring. It can be implemented with
HttpServletRequest. As you say, it doesn't need Servlet 4 or the
servlet4preview
package.

Yes

- HttpServletRequestWrapper implements HttpServletRequest anyway, so
whether we use it or not shouldn't affect services that want
HttpServletRequest.

Yes

- The crux of the problem is a one-generation type check in the OFBiz
service input checking, which uses Class.getInterfaces(). If a class
implements a derived interface, the service type checking
doesn't detect that an object of that class is compatible with the base
interface of the derived one.

Yes

One-generation type checking is not foolproof, but probably faster than
using recursion to search for base interfaces. OFBiz has been happily
running for years without a multi-generation type check. I like Scott's
idea: for the tiny fraction of services that accept HttpServletRequest,
define the type as Object with a custom validation method. We can probably
revert to HttpServletRequest with Tomcat 9, but that is a bigger and more
disruptive change.
This could be a temporary workaround but we eventually want to update to Tomcat 9 anyway because we don't know which other damages servlet4preview,
which is a temporary incomplete thing, can do.

Jacques

Cheers

Paul Foxworthy

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


I don't exactly find it, but I'll take your word. Anyway it makes absolutely 
sense, not a point to discuss more. At least I'll not.

Jacques


Le 27/03/2018 à 02:07, Scott Gray a écrit :

Yeah, I said exactly that elsewhere in the same email.

Regards
Scott

On 26 March 2018 at 21:17, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:


Le 24/03/2018 à 18:49, Scott Gray a écrit :


I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.


We would need some profiling before making any decision, don't you think
so?

Jacques

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


Hi Paul,

Inline...

Le 27/03/2018 à 03:42, Paul Foxworthy a écrit :

I hadn't read through OFBIZ-9833 until this morning. My understanding is
now:

- Tomcat SSO is a red herring. It can be implemented with
HttpServletRequest. As you say, it doesn't need Servlet 4 or the
servlet4preview
package.

Yes



- HttpServletRequestWrapper implements HttpServletRequest anyway, so
whether we use it or not shouldn't affect services that want
HttpServletRequest.

Yes


- The crux of the problem is a one-generation type check in the OFBiz
service input checking, which uses Class.getInterfaces(). If a class
implements a derived interface, the service type checking
doesn't detect that an object of that class is compatible with the base
interface of the derived one.

Yes


One-generation type checking is not foolproof, but probably faster than
using recursion to search for base interfaces. OFBiz has been happily
running for years without a multi-generation type check. I like Scott's
idea: for the tiny fraction of services that accept HttpServletRequest,
define the type as Object with a custom validation method. We can probably
revert to HttpServletRequest with Tomcat 9, but that is a bigger and more
disruptive change.
This could be a temporary workaround but we eventually want to update to Tomcat 9 anyway because we don't know which other damages servlet4preview, 
which is a temporary incomplete thing, can do.


Jacques



Cheers

Paul Foxworthy

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


Le 25/03/2018 à 03:11, Scott Gray a écrit :

That would solve the problem for now until the service engine is improved
and tested or the tomcat SSO login design is improved.
How is the tomcat SSO login design related here? I see only Tomcat 8.5. Of course the tomcat SSO login design may be improved but I don't see how it 
could resolve the issue at hand.


Jacques

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-26 Thread Paul Foxworthy

Hi Jacques,

On 27 March 2018 at 08:16, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:

> What makes you think that Tomcat SSO depends on servlet4preview?
>

Only your words

"So when James introduced Tomcat SSO and optionally passed a
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to the userLogin service it did not
break.
But when I removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter it popped
up".

In the the analysis I did for https://issues.apache.org/jira
> /browse/OFBIZ-10304 I only found that using Tomcat 8.5 (hence
> servlet4preview) we no longer can pass a standard HttpServletRequest  or
> HttpServletResponse with current code. Did you find something else?

No.

 If we now say OFBiz requires Servlet 4.0 and move to Tomcat 9, could we
>> then use the
>> standard HttpServletRequest?
>>
> Yes, that would remove the problem and is IMO the best solution.
>

I hadn't read through OFBIZ-9833 until this morning. My understanding is
now:

- Tomcat SSO is a red herring. It can be implemented with
HttpServletRequest. As you say, it doesn't need Servlet 4 or the
servlet4preview
package.

- HttpServletRequestWrapper implements HttpServletRequest anyway, so
whether we use it or not shouldn't affect services that want
HttpServletRequest.

- The crux of the problem is a one-generation type check in the OFBiz
service input checking, which uses Class.getInterfaces(). If a class
implements a derived interface, the service type checking
doesn't detect that an object of that class is compatible with the base
interface of the derived one.

One-generation type checking is not foolproof, but probably faster than
using recursion to search for base interfaces. OFBiz has been happily
running for years without a multi-generation type check. I like Scott's
idea: for the tiny fraction of services that accept HttpServletRequest,
define the type as Object with a custom validation method. We can probably
revert to HttpServletRequest with Tomcat 9, but that is a bigger and more
disruptive change.

Cheers

Paul Foxworthy

-- 
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 2773
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Australia

Phone: +61 3 9585 6788 <+61%203%209585%206788>
Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
Email: i...@coherentsoftware.com.au

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-26 Thread Scott Gray

Yeah, I said exactly that elsewhere in the same email.

Regards
Scott

On 26 March 2018 at 21:17, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:

> Le 24/03/2018 à 18:49, Scott Gray a écrit :
>
>> I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
>> type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
>> it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.
>>
> We would need some profiling before making any decision, don't you think
> so?
>
> Jacques
>
>

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

Michael,

AFAIK, Tomcat SSO does not directly relates to this issue. For me it was just a catalyseur which allowed me to find the servlet4preview issue due to
Tomcat 8.5 usage. And I can say it was not easy.

This said all reviews of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10047 are welcome. I agree we must be more careful about discussing things in dev
ML before putting in important new feature. This is something we agree about long ago, but tend to forget.

Like people asking user questions on dev ML (w/o not even being subscribed to this ML :/ OK I needed this rant). So yes, we need to continue to
educate ourselves and our users, for the good of the community, and it's not always easy.

Jacques

Le 25/03/2018 à 11:49, Michael Brohl a écrit :

Hi Paul,

I agree, that's what I tried to express in my comments on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10047:

"7. Someone should check this solution from an architectural view. I appreciate the efforts but I am also in doubt if we should put this feature
into the new release. It's very fresh, deals with a very central functionality and should be field tested more."

I really do think that we should have another process when we introduce this
kind of new functionality, make use of new third party API etc..

You and Scott made valuable points in this discussion and if we would have had some kind of voting for this, they might be brought up earlier. The
Jira discussions just slip through if there is no discussion on the dev list.

Thanks,

Michael

Am 25.03.18 um 03:02 schrieb Paul Foxworthy:

Hi all,

The servlet4preview package in Tomcat 8.5 "provides early access to some of
the features of Servlet 4.0" (
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/catalina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html
).

Does use of this package make OFBiz dependent on a preview version, and if
so is that a good idea? Should features that use some preview (like support
for Tomcat SSO, it appears) be contained in a branch or plugin until the
API has been stabilised?

Tomcat 9 was released in January, with support for Servlet 4.0. If we now
say OFBiz requires Servlet 4.0 and move to Tomcat 9, could we then use the
standard HttpServletRequest?

Thanks

Paul Foxworthy

On 25 March 2018 at 04:49, Scott Gray wrote:

So to summarize your long email ;-)

"The service engine has a limitation in that it only checks the interfaces
directly implemented by the object being tested. Tomcat's RequestFacade
doesn't directly implement javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest so it
fails to pass the type validation."

On the surface your suggested fix looks fine to me, my only concern being
that we may need to do some performance testing. For every service that
specifies an interface we'll now be checking the full type hierarchy which
I imagine will be more expensive but I'm not sure how expensive.

I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.

Regards
Scott

On 24 March 2018 at 10:59, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:

Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :

I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is

supposed

to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified
as
the attribute type.

Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.

Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.

Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html

Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service:

payPalCheckoutUpdate.

AFAIK, we have actually always passed a org.apache.catalina.connector.

RequestFacade

to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest in
services definition.
Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements javax.servlet.http.

HttpServletRequest

indirectly through org.apache.catalina.servlet4pr
eview.http.HttpServletRequest
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/connector/RequestFacade.html

Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not

spot

that Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5

The classes check is done by the deeper interfaceOf() method of the
ObjectType class using Class.getInterfaces()
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Class.
html#getInterfaces--
Class.getInterfaces() does not recurse and stops at one level up. So in
case of RequestFacade it returns only servlet4preview.http.

HttpServletRequest

and not javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
So when interfaceOf() compares the Classes it fails.

What happened with my introduction of the

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


Le 24/03/2018 à 18:49, Scott Gray a écrit :

I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.

We would need some profiling before making any decision, don't you think so?

Jacques

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


That's indeed another option, but I'd prefer to update to Tomcat 9, to 
definitely get ride of servlet4preview and problems it brings

Jacques


Le 25/03/2018 à 03:11, Scott Gray a écrit :

Another option if we don't want to have to care about this service engine
limitation right now is the type-validation child element of attribute.

Just specify a class/method that takes the HttpServletRequest as an Object
parameter and then perform the "getAllInterfaces()" test inside there.
e.g.
UtilValidate.isHttpServletRequest(Object request) {
   // do the new test here
}

In the service definition:

   


That would solve the problem for now until the service engine is improved
and tested or the tomcat SSO login design is improved.

Regards
Scott

On 24 March 2018 at 17:49, Scott Gray  wrote:


So to summarize your long email ;-)

"The service engine has a limitation in that it only checks the interfaces
directly implemented by the object being tested.  Tomcat's RequestFacade
doesn't directly implement javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest so it
fails to pass the type validation."

On the surface your suggested fix looks fine to me, my only concern being
that we may need to do some performance testing.  For every service that
specifies an interface we'll now be checking the full type hierarchy which
I imagine will be more expensive but I'm not sure how expensive.

I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.

Regards
Scott

On 24 March 2018 at 10:59, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:


Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :


I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is
supposed
to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified
as
the attribute type.

Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.


Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.

Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html

Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service: payPalCheckoutUpdate.

AFAIK, we have actually always passed a 
org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade
to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest in
services definition.
Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
indirectly through org.apache.catalina.servlet4pr
eview.http.HttpServletRequest
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/connector/RequestFacade.html

Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not
spot that Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5

The classes check is done by the deeper interfaceOf() method of the
ObjectType class using Class.getInterfaces()
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Class.ht
ml#getInterfaces--
Class.getInterfaces() does not recurse and stops at one level up. So in
case of RequestFacade it returns only servlet4preview.http.HttpServletRequest
and not javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
So when interfaceOf() compares the Classes it fails.

What happened with my introduction of the HttpServletRequestWrapper in
ContextFilter is it hid the RequestFacade because HttpServletRequestWrapper
implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/servlet/http/Http
ServletRequest.html

So when James introduced Tomcat SSO and optionally passed a
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to the userLogin service it did
not break.
But when I removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter it popped
up

Summary: it's unfortunate because we have no tests on the
payPalCheckoutUpdate service.
Because I temporarily introduced HttpServletRequestWrapper James was able
to pass a javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, like in
payPalCheckoutUpdate.
When I reverted (removed HttpServletRequestWrapper  from ContextFilter) I
discovered that we had a problem with Tomcat 8.5.

I propose this fix which uses 
org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getAllInterfaces()
and works
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/javadocs/api-r
elease/src-html/org/apache/commons/lang3/ClassUtils.html

Index: framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/Obje
ctType.java
===
--- framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java
(révision 1827594)
+++ framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java
(copie de travail)
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@
   */
  public static boolean interfaceOf(Class objectClass, Class
interfaceClass) {
  while (objectClass != null) {
-

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

Hi Paul, All,

inline...

Le 25/03/2018 à 03:02, Paul Foxworthy a écrit :

Hi all,

What makes you think that Tomcat SSO depends on servlet4preview?
In the the analysis I did for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10304 I only found that using Tomcat 8.5 (hence servlet4preview) we no
longer can pass a standard HttpServletRequest or HttpServletResponse with current code.

Did you find something else?

Tomcat 9 was released in January, with support for Servlet 4.0. If we now
say OFBiz requires Servlet 4.0 and move to Tomcat 9, could we then use the
standard HttpServletRequest?

Yes, that would remove the problem and is IMO the best solution.

But after upgrading to Tomcat 8.5 at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9813 (we did not notice the possible issue with servlet4preview, I
must say it's not obvious in Tomcat 8.5 changelog: no warning) Michael tried to update to Tomcat 9 twice w/o success:

* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10026
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10036

So, I think we need now to continue the work initiated by Michael to definitely
close the related dependent issues (by using Tomcat 9):

* OFBIZ-10304 that made the problem to appear. Actually it was already
existing for all services which were using standard HttpServletRequest or
HttpServletResponse as IN or OUT or IN/OUT attributes. Not much OOTB, but we
don't know for users... Note that with OFBIZ-9813 R17.12 uses Tomcat
8.5. So it's not only trunk and we need to consider this a bug and update
R17.12 as well.
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10047 which IMO does not depend
on Tomcat 8.5 but made me research and open OFBIZ-10304 after I could
not revert the HttpServletRequestWrapper at
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1827441
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10307 were I need to revert my
previous work committed for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9833 which was partially wrong.

I purposely put the 1st appearance of a link inside the text. I think it's the
easiest way to follow a thought put in an email.

Jacques

Thanks

Paul Foxworthy

On 25 March 2018 at 04:49, Scott Gray wrote:

So to summarize your long email ;-)

Regards
Scott

On 24 March 2018 at 10:59, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:

Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :

I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is

supposed

to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified
as
the attribute type.

Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.

Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.

Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html

Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service:

payPalCheckoutUpdate.

AFAIK, we have actually always passed a org.apache.catalina.connector.

RequestFacade

to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest in
services definition.
Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements javax.servlet.http.

HttpServletRequest

indirectly through org.apache.catalina.servlet4pr
eview.http.HttpServletRequest
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/connector/RequestFacade.html

Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not

spot

that Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5

The classes check is done by the deeper interfaceOf() method of the
ObjectType class using Class.getInterfaces()

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-25 Thread Michael Brohl

Hi Paul,

I agree, that's what I tried to express in my comments on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10047:

"7. Someone should check this solution from an architectural view. I
appreciate the efforts but I am also in doubt if we should put this
feature into the new release. It's very fresh, deals with a very central
functionality and should be field tested more."

I really do think that we should have another process when we introduce
this kind of new functionality, make use of new third party API etc..

You and Scott made valuable points in this discussion and if we would
have had some kind of voting for this, they might be brought up earlier.
The Jira discussions just slip through if there is no discussion on the
dev list.

Thanks,

Michael

Am 25.03.18 um 03:02 schrieb Paul Foxworthy:

Hi all,

Tomcat 9 was released in January, with support for Servlet 4.0. If we now
say OFBiz requires Servlet 4.0 and move to Tomcat 9, could we then use the
standard HttpServletRequest?

Thanks

Paul Foxworthy

On 25 March 2018 at 04:49, Scott Gray wrote:

So to summarize your long email ;-)

Regards
Scott

On 24 March 2018 at 10:59, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:

Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :

I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is

supposed

to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified
as
the attribute type.

Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.

Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.

Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html

Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service:

payPalCheckoutUpdate.

AFAIK, we have actually always passed a org.apache.catalina.connector.

RequestFacade

to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest in
services definition.
Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements javax.servlet.http.

HttpServletRequest

indirectly through org.apache.catalina.servlet4pr
eview.http.HttpServletRequest
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
lina/connector/RequestFacade.html

Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not

spot

that Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5

HttpServletRequest

and not javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
So when interfaceOf() compares the Classes it fails.

What happened with my introduction of the HttpServletRequestWrapper in
ContextFilter is it hid the RequestFacade because

HttpServletRequestWrapper

implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/servlet/http/
HttpServletRequest.html

So when James introduced Tomcat SSO and optionally passed a
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to the userLogin service it did

not

break.
But when I removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter it popped
up

Summary: it's unfortunate because we have no tests on the
payPalCheckoutUpdate service.
Because I temporarily introduced HttpServletRequestWrapper James was able
to pass a javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, like in
payPalCheckoutUpdate.
When I reverted (removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter) I

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-24 Thread Scott Gray

Another option if we don't want to have to care about this service engine
limitation right now is the type-validation child element of attribute.

Just specify a class/method that takes the HttpServletRequest as an Object
parameter and then perform the "getAllInterfaces()" test inside there.
e.g.
UtilValidate.isHttpServletRequest(Object request) {
  // do the new test here
}

In the service definition:

  


That would solve the problem for now until the service engine is improved
and tested or the tomcat SSO login design is improved.

Regards
Scott

On 24 March 2018 at 17:49, Scott Gray  wrote:

> So to summarize your long email ;-)
>
> "The service engine has a limitation in that it only checks the interfaces
> directly implemented by the object being tested.  Tomcat's RequestFacade
> doesn't directly implement javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest so it
> fails to pass the type validation."
>
> On the surface your suggested fix looks fine to me, my only concern being
> that we may need to do some performance testing.  For every service that
> specifies an interface we'll now be checking the full type hierarchy which
> I imagine will be more expensive but I'm not sure how expensive.
>
> I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
> type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
> it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 24 March 2018 at 10:59, Jacques Le Roux 
> wrote:
>
>> Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>
>>> I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is
>>> supposed
>>> to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified
>>> as
>>> the attribute type.
>>>
>>> Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
>>> implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.
>>>
>> Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.
>>
>> Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
>> https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
>> lina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html
>>
>> Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a
>> javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service: payPalCheckoutUpdate.
>>
>> AFAIK, we have actually always passed a 
>> org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade
>> to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest in
>> services definition.
>> Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements 
>> javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
>> indirectly through org.apache.catalina.servlet4pr
>> eview.http.HttpServletRequest
>> https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
>> lina/connector/RequestFacade.html
>>
>> Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not
>> spot that Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
>>
>> The classes check is done by the deeper interfaceOf() method of the
>> ObjectType class using Class.getInterfaces()
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Class.ht
>> ml#getInterfaces--
>> Class.getInterfaces() does not recurse and stops at one level up. So in
>> case of RequestFacade it returns only servlet4preview.http.HttpServletRequest
>> and not javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
>> So when interfaceOf() compares the Classes it fails.
>>
>> What happened with my introduction of the HttpServletRequestWrapper in
>> ContextFilter is it hid the RequestFacade because HttpServletRequestWrapper
>> implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/servlet/http/Http
>> ServletRequest.html
>>
>> So when James introduced Tomcat SSO and optionally passed a
>> javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to the userLogin service it did
>> not break.
>> But when I removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter it popped
>> up
>>
>> Summary: it's unfortunate because we have no tests on the
>> payPalCheckoutUpdate service.
>> Because I temporarily introduced HttpServletRequestWrapper James was able
>> to pass a javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, like in
>> payPalCheckoutUpdate.
>> When I reverted (removed HttpServletRequestWrapper  from ContextFilter) I
>> discovered that we had a problem with Tomcat 8.5.
>>
>> I propose this fix which uses 
>> org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getAllInterfaces()
>> and works
>> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/javadocs/api-r
>> elease/src-html/org/apache/commons/lang3/ClassUtils.html
>>
>> Index: framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/Obje
>> ctType.java
>> ===
>> --- framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java
>> (révision 1827594)
>> +++ framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java
>> (copie de travail)
>> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@
>>   */
>>  public static boolean interfaceOf(Class objectClass, Class
>>

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-24 Thread Paul Foxworthy

Hi all,

The servlet4preview package in Tomcat 8.5 "provides early access to some of
the features of Servlet 4.0" (
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/catalina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html
).

Does use of this package make OFBiz dependent on a preview version, and if
so is that a good idea? Should features that use some preview (like support
for Tomcat SSO, it appears) be contained in a branch or plugin until the
API has been stabilised?

Tomcat 9 was released in January, with support for Servlet 4.0. If we now
say OFBiz requires Servlet 4.0 and move to Tomcat 9, could we then use the
standard HttpServletRequest?

Thanks

Paul Foxworthy


On 25 March 2018 at 04:49, Scott Gray  wrote:

> So to summarize your long email ;-)
>
> "The service engine has a limitation in that it only checks the interfaces
> directly implemented by the object being tested.  Tomcat's RequestFacade
> doesn't directly implement javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest so it
> fails to pass the type validation."
>
> On the surface your suggested fix looks fine to me, my only concern being
> that we may need to do some performance testing.  For every service that
> specifies an interface we'll now be checking the full type hierarchy which
> I imagine will be more expensive but I'm not sure how expensive.
>
> I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
> type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
> it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 24 March 2018 at 10:59, Jacques Le Roux 
> wrote:
>
> > Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :
> >
> >> I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is
> supposed
> >> to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified
> >> as
> >> the attribute type.
> >>
> >> Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
> >> implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.
> >>
> > Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.
> >
> > Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
> > https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
> > lina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html
> >
> > Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a
> > javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service:
> payPalCheckoutUpdate.
> >
> > AFAIK, we have actually always passed a org.apache.catalina.connector.
> RequestFacade
> > to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest in
> > services definition.
> > Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements javax.servlet.http.
> HttpServletRequest
> > indirectly through org.apache.catalina.servlet4pr
> > eview.http.HttpServletRequest
> > https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
> > lina/connector/RequestFacade.html
> >
> > Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not
> spot
> > that Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
> >
> > The classes check is done by the deeper interfaceOf() method of the
> > ObjectType class using Class.getInterfaces()
> > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Class.
> > html#getInterfaces--
> > Class.getInterfaces() does not recurse and stops at one level up. So in
> > case of RequestFacade it returns only servlet4preview.http.
> HttpServletRequest
> > and not javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
> > So when interfaceOf() compares the Classes it fails.
> >
> > What happened with my introduction of the HttpServletRequestWrapper in
> > ContextFilter is it hid the RequestFacade because
> HttpServletRequestWrapper
> > implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
> > https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/servlet/http/
> > HttpServletRequest.html
> >
> > So when James introduced Tomcat SSO and optionally passed a
> > javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to the userLogin service it did
> not
> > break.
> > But when I removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter it popped
> > up
> >
> > Summary: it's unfortunate because we have no tests on the
> > payPalCheckoutUpdate service.
> > Because I temporarily introduced HttpServletRequestWrapper James was able
> > to pass a javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, like in
> > payPalCheckoutUpdate.
> > When I reverted (removed HttpServletRequestWrapper  from ContextFilter) I
> > discovered that we had a problem with Tomcat 8.5.
> >
> > I propose this fix which uses org.apache.commons.lang3.
> ClassUtils.getAllInterfaces()
> > and works
> > http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/javadocs/api-
> > release/src-html/org/apache/commons/lang3/ClassUtils.html
> >
> > Index: framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/Obje
> > ctType.java
> > ===
> > --- framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/
> ObjectType.java
> > (révision 1827594)
> > +++

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-24 Thread Scott Gray

So to summarize your long email ;-)

"The service engine has a limitation in that it only checks the interfaces
directly implemented by the object being tested.  Tomcat's RequestFacade
doesn't directly implement javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest so it
fails to pass the type validation."

On the surface your suggested fix looks fine to me, my only concern being
that we may need to do some performance testing.  For every service that
specifies an interface we'll now be checking the full type hierarchy which
I imagine will be more expensive but I'm not sure how expensive.

I'm also not even sure if our custom ObjectType methods for checking this
type of thing are necessary any more with so many new java versions since
it was decided these were needed for performance reasons.

Regards
Scott

On 24 March 2018 at 10:59, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:

> Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :
>
>> I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is supposed
>> to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified
>> as
>> the attribute type.
>>
>> Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
>> implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.
>>
> Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.
>
> Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
> https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
> lina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html
>
> Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a
> javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service: payPalCheckoutUpdate.
>
> AFAIK, we have actually always passed a 
> org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade
> to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest in
> services definition.
> Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements 
> javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
> indirectly through org.apache.catalina.servlet4pr
> eview.http.HttpServletRequest
> https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/cata
> lina/connector/RequestFacade.html
>
> Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not spot
> that Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
>
> The classes check is done by the deeper interfaceOf() method of the
> ObjectType class using Class.getInterfaces()
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Class.
> html#getInterfaces--
> Class.getInterfaces() does not recurse and stops at one level up. So in
> case of RequestFacade it returns only servlet4preview.http.HttpServletRequest
> and not javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
> So when interfaceOf() compares the Classes it fails.
>
> What happened with my introduction of the HttpServletRequestWrapper in
> ContextFilter is it hid the RequestFacade because HttpServletRequestWrapper
> implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest
> https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/servlet/http/
> HttpServletRequest.html
>
> So when James introduced Tomcat SSO and optionally passed a
> javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to the userLogin service it did not
> break.
> But when I removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter it popped
> up
>
> Summary: it's unfortunate because we have no tests on the
> payPalCheckoutUpdate service.
> Because I temporarily introduced HttpServletRequestWrapper James was able
> to pass a javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, like in
> payPalCheckoutUpdate.
> When I reverted (removed HttpServletRequestWrapper  from ContextFilter) I
> discovered that we had a problem with Tomcat 8.5.
>
> I propose this fix which uses 
> org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getAllInterfaces()
> and works
> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/javadocs/api-
> release/src-html/org/apache/commons/lang3/ClassUtils.html
>
> Index: framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/Obje
> ctType.java
> ===
> --- framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java
> (révision 1827594)
> +++ framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java
> (copie de travail)
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@
>   */
>  public static boolean interfaceOf(Class objectClass, Class
> interfaceClass) {
>  while (objectClass != null) {
> -Class[] ifaces = objectClass.getInterfaces();
> +List ifaces = org.apache.commons.lang3.Class
> Utils.getAllInterfaces(objectClass);
>
>  for (Class iface: ifaces) {
>  if (iface == interfaceClass) {
> Index: framework/common/servicedef/services.xml
> ===
> --- framework/common/servicedef/services.xml(révision 1827594)
> +++ framework/common/servicedef/services.xml(copie de travail)
> @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@
>  
>  Used to Automatically Authenticate a
> username/password; create a UserLogin object
>  
> -

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-24 Thread Jacques Le Roux


Le 23/03/2018 à 17:09, Scott Gray a écrit :

I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is supposed
to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified as
the attribute type.

Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.

Neither, it's "unfortunate", and a bit complicated.

Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5
https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/catalina/servlet4preview/package-summary.html

Before James introduced Tomcat SSO, we had only one service passing a 
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to a service: payPalCheckoutUpdate.

AFAIK, we have actually always passed a org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade to services when asking for javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest 
in services definition.
Since Tomcat 8.5 RequestFacade implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest indirectly through 
org.apache.catalina.servlet4preview.http.HttpServletRequest

https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/api/org/apache/catalina/connector/RequestFacade.html

Since we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate service we did not spot that 
Tomcat servlet4preview was introduced with Tomcat 8.5

The classes check is done by the deeper interfaceOf() method of the ObjectType 
class using Class.getInterfaces()
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getInterfaces--
Class.getInterfaces() does not recurse and stops at one level up. So in case of RequestFacade it returns only servlet4preview.http.HttpServletRequest 
and not javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest

So when interfaceOf() compares the Classes it fails.

What happened with my introduction of the HttpServletRequestWrapper in ContextFilter is it hid the RequestFacade because HttpServletRequestWrapper 
implements javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest

https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/servlet/http/HttpServletRequest.html

So when James introduced Tomcat SSO and optionally passed a 
javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest to the userLogin service it did not break.
But when I removed HttpServletRequestWrapper from ContextFilter it popped up

Summary: it's unfortunate because we have no tests on the payPalCheckoutUpdate 
service.
Because I temporarily introduced HttpServletRequestWrapper James was able to 
pass a javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, like in payPalCheckoutUpdate.
When I reverted (removed HttpServletRequestWrapper  from ContextFilter) I 
discovered that we had a problem with Tomcat 8.5.

I propose this fix which uses 
org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getAllInterfaces() and works
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/javadocs/api-release/src-html/org/apache/commons/lang3/ClassUtils.html

Index: framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java
===
--- framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java 
(révision 1827594)
+++ framework/base/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/util/ObjectType.java 
(copie de travail)
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@
  */
 public static boolean interfaceOf(Class objectClass, Class 
interfaceClass) {
 while (objectClass != null) {
-    Class[] ifaces = objectClass.getInterfaces();
+    List ifaces = 
org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getAllInterfaces(objectClass);

 for (Class iface: ifaces) {
 if (iface == interfaceClass) {
Index: framework/common/servicedef/services.xml
===
--- framework/common/servicedef/services.xml    (révision 1827594)
+++ framework/common/servicedef/services.xml    (copie de travail)
@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@
 
 Used to Automatically Authenticate a username/password; create 
a UserLogin object
 
-    
+    
 
 

Jacques




Regards
Scott

On 23 March 2018 at 07:36, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:


Did you try what I said?

You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
in ContextFilter.java.

Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?

Jacques



Le 23/03/2018 à 03:39, Scott Gray a écrit :


Something else must be wrong Jacques, I can't understand what you're
saying
in the ticket description or in your reply above but I do know the
following:
OFBiz is perfectly capable of knowing that
org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade
implements the javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest and it should pass
type validation without errors.

Since we know that, this commit becomes unnecessary.

Regards
Scott

On 22 March 2018 at 16:06, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:

Michael,

I commited http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/fra
mework/webapp/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/webapp/contro
l/ContextFilter.java?r1=1813679=1813678=1813679

Where I added a wrapper. Then for "Tomcat SSO"

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-23 Thread Scott Gray

I don't need to try anything, I *know* that the service engine is supposed
to accept a concrete class of an interface if the interface is specified as
the attribute type.

Either the service engine is broken by not accepting concrete
implementations, or the bug report is incorrect.

Regards
Scott

On 23 March 2018 at 07:36, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:

> Did you try what I said?
>
> You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
> in ContextFilter.java.
>
> Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 23/03/2018 à 03:39, Scott Gray a écrit :
>
>> Something else must be wrong Jacques, I can't understand what you're
>> saying
>> in the ticket description or in your reply above but I do know the
>> following:
>> OFBiz is perfectly capable of knowing that
>> org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade
>> implements the javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest and it should pass
>> type validation without errors.
>>
>> Since we know that, this commit becomes unnecessary.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 22 March 2018 at 16:06, Jacques Le Roux 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>>>
>>> I commited http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/fra
>>> mework/webapp/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/webapp/contro
>>> l/ContextFilter.java?r1=1813679=1813678=1813679
>>>
>>> Where I added a wrapper. Then for "Tomcat SSO" (OFBIZ-10047) James
>>> committed
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/fra
>>> mework/common/servicedef/services.xml?r1=1819133=1819132&
>>> pathrev=1819133
>>>
>>> If I had not committed the wrapper in ContextFilter.java beforehand,
>>> James
>>> would not have been allowed to commit
>>>
>>> >> optional="true"/>
>>>
>>> Because it's then rejected, because then the userLogin service actually
>>> receive an org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade (RequestFacade
>>> implements HttpServletRequest.)
>>>
>>> You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
>>> in ContextFilter.java.
>>>
>>> You are right that it ties OFBiz to Tomcat. We took this decision
>>> sometimes ago and we no longer support other webapp servers OOTB, nor
>>> tools
>>> like Jetty.
>>>
>>> So OFBiz OOTB totally depends on Tomcat as the build.gradle file shows.
>>> So
>>> I think it's safe to use a RequestFacade there.
>>>
>>> If an user feels the need to use another webapp servers or Jetty, I think
>>> changing that would not be the most of the worries (the rest being much
>>> more frightening, I know I did it once with Geronimo).
>>>
>>> Since the check is done at the service level, it's hard to do otherwise
>>> But I must say I did not dig too much and it's maybe possible, we can
>>> discuss that...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 22/03/2018 à 16:22, Michael Brohl a écrit :
>>>
>>> Mmhhh, Jacques,

 I think this is problematic because it ties a special implementation for
 Tomcat to the service. I didn't see this anywhere else.

 The issue (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10304) is a bit
 unclear and I don't get the purpose of this change.

 Can you please explain more clearly which problem this changes solves
 and
 why we'll need org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade as the type?

 Thanks,

 Michael


 Am 21.03.18 um 21:53 schrieb jler...@apache.org:

 Author: jleroux
> Date: Wed Mar 21 20:53:41 2018
> New Revision: 1827439
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1827439=rev
> Log:
> Fixed: The "request" attribute type of the userLogin service is wrong
> (OFBIZ-10304)
>
> It should have been org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade"
> instead of javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest see the Jira for
> details
>
> Modified:
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml
>
> Modified: ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/serv
> ices.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/fra
> mework/common/servicedef/services.xml?rev=1827439=1827438
> =1827439=diff
> 
> ==
> --- ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/serv
> ices.xml
> (original)
> +++ ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/serv
> ices.xml
> Wed Mar 21 20:53:41 2018
> @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ under the License.
>
>Used to Automatically Authenticate a
> username/password; create a UserLogin object
>
> - type="javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest" optional="true"/>
> + type="org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade" optional="true"/>
>
>location="org.apache.ofbiz.common.login.LoginServices"
> invoke="createUserLogin">

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-23 Thread Taher Alkhateeb

I have issues with multiple decisions all around that same topic that
never got community consensus. Changes to cookies, http redirects,
authentication, and other commits that did not get a proper review
from the community. Such major design decisions need proper review IMO

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux
 wrote:
> Le 23/03/2018 à 09:33, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>
>> Le 23/03/2018 à 09:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>
 Did you try what I said?

 You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the
 wrapper
 in ContextFilter.java.

 Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?
>>>
>>>
>>> A thorough review of that feature is actually on my todo list since some
>>> time, after I have noticed some potential design issues.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>> Thanks Jacopo,
>>
>> I'll also review ASAP since I seconded this feature
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
> BTW, forgot to say but the proposed feature at OFBIZ-10307 could be also
> used locally (dropping the CORS part).
> I tested it initially before crossing CORS (pun intended) and it works
> perfectly. It's safe because, like JSESSION, it's build upon safe AutoLogin
> cookies
> So we could use it instead of ExternalLoginKey or TomcatSSO. I did not test
> in a cluster environment though...
>
> Anyway just saying for now.
>
> Jacques
>

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


Le 23/03/2018 à 09:33, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 23/03/2018 à 09:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:


Did you try what I said?

You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
in ContextFilter.java.

Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?


A thorough review of that feature is actually on my todo list since some
time, after I have noticed some potential design issues.

Jacopo


Thanks Jacopo,

I'll also review ASAP since I seconded this feature

Jacques



BTW, forgot to say but the proposed feature at OFBIZ-10307 could be also used 
locally (dropping the CORS part).
I tested it initially before crossing CORS (pun intended) and it works perfectly. It's safe because, like JSESSION, it's build upon safe AutoLogin 
cookies

So we could use it instead of ExternalLoginKey or TomcatSSO. I did not test in 
a cluster environment though...

Anyway just saying for now.

Jacques

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


Le 23/03/2018 à 09:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:


Did you try what I said?

You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
in ContextFilter.java.

Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?


A thorough review of that feature is actually on my todo list since some
time, after I have noticed some potential design issues.

Jacopo


Thanks Jacopo,

I'll also review ASAP since I seconded this feature

Jacques

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

2018-03-23 Thread Jacopo Cappellato

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Did you try what I said?
>
> You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
> in ContextFilter.java.
>
> Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?

A thorough review of that feature is actually on my todo list since some
time, after I have noticed some potential design issues.

Jacopo

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml


Did you try what I said?

You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
in ContextFilter.java.

Maybe we need to revert Tomcat SSO then?

Jacques


Le 23/03/2018 à 03:39, Scott Gray a écrit :

Something else must be wrong Jacques, I can't understand what you're saying
in the ticket description or in your reply above but I do know the
following:
OFBiz is perfectly capable of knowing that
org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade
implements the javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest and it should pass
type validation without errors.

Since we know that, this commit becomes unnecessary.

Regards
Scott

On 22 March 2018 at 16:06, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:


Michael,

I commited http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/fra
mework/webapp/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/webapp/contro
l/ContextFilter.java?r1=1813679=1813678=1813679

Where I added a wrapper. Then for "Tomcat SSO" (OFBIZ-10047) James
committed
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/fra
mework/common/servicedef/services.xml?r1=1819133=1819132&
pathrev=1819133

If I had not committed the wrapper in ContextFilter.java beforehand, James
would not have been allowed to commit



Because it's then rejected, because then the userLogin service actually
receive an org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade (RequestFacade
implements HttpServletRequest.)

You can easily check by svn updating to r1819133 and removing the wrapper
in ContextFilter.java.

You are right that it ties OFBiz to Tomcat. We took this decision
sometimes ago and we no longer support other webapp servers OOTB, nor tools
like Jetty.

So OFBiz OOTB totally depends on Tomcat as the build.gradle file shows. So
I think it's safe to use a RequestFacade there.

If an user feels the need to use another webapp servers or Jetty, I think
changing that would not be the most of the worries (the rest being much
more frightening, I know I did it once with Geronimo).

Since the check is done at the service level, it's hard to do otherwise
But I must say I did not dig too much and it's maybe possible, we can
discuss that...

Jacques




Le 22/03/2018 à 16:22, Michael Brohl a écrit :


Mmhhh, Jacques,

I think this is problematic because it ties a special implementation for
Tomcat to the service. I didn't see this anywhere else.

The issue (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10304) is a bit
unclear and I don't get the purpose of this change.

Can you please explain more clearly which problem this changes solves and
why we'll need org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade as the type?

Thanks,

Michael


Am 21.03.18 um 21:53 schrieb jler...@apache.org:


Author: jleroux
Date: Wed Mar 21 20:53:41 2018
New Revision: 1827439

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1827439=rev
Log:
Fixed: The "request" attribute type of the userLogin service is wrong
(OFBIZ-10304)

It should have been org.apache.catalina.connector.RequestFacade"
instead of javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest see the Jira for
details

Modified:
ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml

Modified: ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/serv
ices.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/fra
mework/common/servicedef/services.xml?rev=1827439=1827438
=1827439=diff

==
--- ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml
(original)
+++ ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml
Wed Mar 21 20:53:41 2018
@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ under the License.
   
   Used to Automatically Authenticate a
username/password; create a UserLogin object
   
-
+

Re: svn commit: r1827439 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/servicedef/services.xml