Thanks for the updates. I'm slowly starting to figure this out. A quick
question though. What is the usefulness of putting the user in the
defintions.xml file?

-Jason
 
 
 
############################################################################
############################################################################
#########
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended
only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure
by another person is strictly prohibited.
############################################################################
############################################################################
#########
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Venkata Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:14 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Handling authentication for non-web services?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have added some minor updates to the the helloworld-ws-service-secure
> and
> helloworld-ws-reference-secure samples to given an idea of how simple
> authentication around userid and passwords could be performed.
> 
> I have also added one more component that uses a policyset with
> ws-security-policy assertions for implementing message integrity - again
> courtesy - Rampart samples :)
> 
> Hope all this helps a bit.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> - Venkat
> 
> On 10/23/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Here are some thoughts for your queries on the policies and enabling
> > authentication to leverage from an LDAP registry.
> >
> > - Our Axis2 based WS Binding uses the Apache Rampart module for enabling
> > security around the web services hosted by our SCA Runtime.  If you look
> at
> > the sample helloworld-ws-service-secure and helloworld-ws-reference-
> secure
> > it uses simple user id and password based authentication.  There is a
> > password call back handler in the sample that actually deals with
> looking up
> > a userId and password and verifying if it matches.  This handler is
> probably
> > the place from where you might need to connect to your LDAP registry to
> > authenticate. I am not aware of Rampart handlers that can directly go
> over
> > to a specified LDAP registry and do this check, hence avoiding the code
> you
> > may now have to write in the handler.
> >
> > On your other issue with sockets, it seems to me that you are wanting to
> > do that for supporting rich clients.  Though I am not sure if it would
> fit
> > your requirement maybe you could take a look at our binding-dwr (binding
> > based on direct web remoting) and the chat sample that uses this.
> >
> > - Venkat
> >
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Jason Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ##########################################################################
> ##
> > >
> > >
> ##########################################################################
> ##
> > > #########
> > > This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information
> > > intended
> > > only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or
> > > disclosure
> > > by another person is strictly prohibited.
> > >
> > >
> ##########################################################################
> ##
> > >
> ##########################################################################
> ##
> > >
> > > #########
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:21 AM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: Handling authentication for non-web services?
> > > >
> > > > On 10/19/07, Jason Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a lot of text to scroll through, so I'll just add my
> comments
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > top.
> > > > >
> > > > > In regards to how the service is selected, this is based on
> > > information
> > > > > within the message. Authentication simply determines if the
> message
> > > is
> > > > > allowed to pass on.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In regards to the protocol between tomcat and the service, once
> > > > > authentication is accepted, the message is simply forwarded to the
> > > > > service.
> > > > > The service itself handles the entire message parsing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There seem to be some alternatives here then.
> > > >
> > > > Convert the current services to SCA Components and maintain the
> > > servlet
> > > > routing component. This would be my first suggestion to get you up
> and
> > > > running and give you a feel for what Tuscany can do. The servlet of
> > > course
> > > > needs to talk to the services. This can be done either locally or
> > > remotely
> > > > using a binding of your choice. So the servlet would need to be
> > > modified
> > > > to
> > > > hold references to services in the SCA domain. You can see examples
> of
> > > > Tuscany running in a web app, for example, calculator-webapp. These
> > > webapp
> > > > samples don't run as part of the distributed domain yet but I'm
> > > looking at
> > > > that at the moment.
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to give the impression that I think everything must
> live
> > > > inside
> > > > of SCA but just thinking aloud about some other things that could be
> > > > done...
> > > >
> > > > Based on what you have said already I'm assuming that you can't
> change
> > > > your
> > > > clients and that they currently provide the XML message as part of
> an
> > > HTTP
> > > > POST.
> > > >
> > > > Construct a gateway component (in place of the servlet) that accepts
> > > the
> > > > XML
> > > > over an HTTP binding. The function of the component would be to
> route
> > > the
> > > > message to wired components based on the contents of the XML. To
> make
> > > this
> > > > work we'd have to fix up binding.http to accept POSTed data.
> > > >
> > >
> > > On the OSOA page, there is a section on bindings that covers ws and
> jms,
> > > but
> > > I have been unable to find documentation on the http, rss, and atom
> > > bindings. Is there any documentation that outlines the schema for the
> > > various bindings available?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I've seen discussions recently about hosting web applications in SCA
> > > as
> > > > well
> > > > as the other way round. So in the future the solution maybe that you
> > > just
> > > > take the servlet you have and deploy that as a component. There's no
> > > > support
> > > > yet though.
> > > >
> > > > Construct a set of policies to handle the LDAP based authentication
> > > > activity
> > > > for binding.http .
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've seen the WS policies sample, but I'm still trying to figure the
> > > policies system out. If it's not a bother, can you give me a quick
> > > example
> > > on how I would deal with LDAP based authentication for the http
> binding
> > > given that user name and pw have been passed in the message?
> > >
> > > > If you can change your clients then there are of bindings that could
> > > be
> > > > used
> > > > while keeping the same XML message structure.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The service interface extends our own general MessageService
> interface
> > > > which
> > > > > has methods for receiving text messages it will have to parse as
> > > well as
> > > > a
> > > > > more specific service interface for places where services can make
> > > > method
> > > > > calls directly.
> > > >
> > > >  I don't understand the last bit about "more specific service
> > > interface
> > > > for
> > > > places where services can make method
> > > > calls directly". Should it read "...where clients can make method
> > > calls
> > > > directly"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > In this case, I meant the service interface for a reference given to a
> > > service. This isn't that important given that all the service
> interfaces
> > > can
> > > be modified at the moment. We're actually moving into phase II of the
> > > project where phase I was just prototyping. So it can all be modified
> at
> > > the
> > > start of the new phase.
> > >
> > > > This was more or less an initial attempt at a roll-our-own service
> > > > component
> > > > > architecture if you will, before I even knew how to goggle those 3
> > > words
> > > > > together. I didn't even know SCA existed until last week. HA! I
> > > don't
> > > > want
> > > > > to keep writing code for something that already exists.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Glad you found us!
> > > >
> > > > By TCP, I meant socket, to keep a persistent connection with our
> > > > application
> > > > > due to some real-time processing requirements, i.e. someone posts
> > > some
> > > > > information, we want it pushed as quickly as possible out to the
> > > > clients.
> > > > > As
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We don't support TCP sockets directly. All of our bindings are
> > > currently
> > > > at
> > > > a higher level but of course ultimately built on TCP.  Is it
> important
> > >
> > > > that
> > > > it is TCP or just that the client is listening waiting for a
> message?
> > > >
> > > > far as I can tell, this isn't possible with web clients. (We have
> both
> > > a
> > > > web
> > > > > front end and a thick client app to the program).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It depends how your web client has been written. For example, we
> have
> > > a
> > > > level of support for this kind of thing in binding.dwr which allows
> a
> > > fake
> > > > reference to be construct from services back to a web client. Under
> > > the
> > > > covers it is using some HTTP tricks to make it happen.
> > > >
> > > > The SCA programming model more generally has some concepts that
> might
> > > > help.
> > > > The implication of having an open socket between the client and a
> > > service
> > > > is
> > > > that the service holds state about this connection.Typically we try
> to
> > > > think
> > > > of services as being stateless but it is often that some state must
> be
> > > > maintained in some circumstances.  It might be worth thinking about
> > > how to
> > > > formalize this relationship with callback and/or a conversational
> > > > semantics.
> > >
> > > Is there a sample on how to handle conversational sematics? I don't
> > > quite
> > > understand how this works yet.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Jason
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:10 PM
> > > > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Handling authentication for non-web services?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jason
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I expect others in the project who are closer to some of the non
> > > web
> > > > > > services bindings will have their own views on this. Am setting
> > > the
> > > > ball
> > > > > > rolling by asking some questions. See below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a general rule I would try and start simple so I wouldn't
> > > > necessarily
> > > > > > dive into thinking about new bindings, policies etc. in the
> first
> > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > Have a go with your front end and an SCA service behind it and
> > > then
> > > > > expand
> > > > > > from there. Even with this you might be facing the
> > > binding/databinding
> > > > > > question depending on you service interfaces but lets break the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > down
> > > > > > and see what the simple steps are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/18/07, Jason Clark < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello all. I am currently working on transitioning the project
> I
> > > am
> > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > on from it's current framework to Tuscany. It's already
> services
> > >
> > > > > based,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > that is making things easier. Currently, a custom formatted
> xml
> > > > > message
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > posted through tomcat. When the servlet recieves it, it does
> > > some
> > > > > custom
> > > > > > > authentication against an LDAP server and then forwards the
> > > message
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > appropriate service for processing. It's very much a roll your
> > > own
> > > > > > > solution
> > > > > > > right now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is service selection a function of authentication or is this
> based
> > > on
> > > > > some
> > > > > > information in the message?
> > > > > > What's the protocol between the servlet in Tomcat and the
> service?
> > > Is
> > > > it
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > sample XM message?
> > > > > > What does the service interface look like, i.e. the service that
> > > the
> > > > > > servlet
> > > > > > forwards to?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to better leverage existing technologies and
> Tuscany
> > > > > > > capabilities to improve this process. I need to continue to
> use
> > > the
> > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > format I'm using. Would I need to write a new binding since
> it's
> > > not
> > > > a
> > > > > > > format supported by JSON or WS? Or, would I keep doing what Im
> > > doing
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > current services just now registered on a domain and the
> servlet
> > > > > > receiving
> > > > > > > the message continue with the custom validation then use the
> > > domain
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > fetch the appropriate service to pass the message along to?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A new binding is certainly a possibility. What it sounds like
> you
> > > need
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > some kind of REST binding to be able to "post" an XML document
> to
> > > a
> > > > > > service
> > > > > > "post" method. There are a couple of bindings that deal in
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > data,
> > > > > > I.e. binding.http and the feed bindings binding.rss and
> > > binding.atom.
> > > > > None
> > > > > > of these fit the bill directly but they we could potentially
> > > tailor
> > > > one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Raymond has been doing some work recently on building a demo
> > > showing
> > > > how
> > > > > > XML
> > > > > > can be handled (demo/xml-bigbank). This would be worth a look,
> for
> > >
> > > > > > example,
> > > > > > you can see in the AccountData service how he's dealing with an
> > > > > > XMLStreamReader.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Venkat has been looking to policy intents to separate the
> > > > authentication
> > > > > > function from the details of the bindings. You can see an
> example
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the helloworld-ws-service-secure and
> > > helloworld-ws-reference-secure
> > > > > > samples.
> > > > > > This might be the way to go in terms of associating LDAP based
> > > > > > authentication with any bindings you use. That would be a nice
> > > > addition
> > > > > to
> > > > > > Tuscany in it's own right;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, how would I go about writing a TCP/IP window into the app?
> > > Just
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > my own, or is there some support for this in Tuscany somehow?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by a TCP/IP window? Socket? Where would that
> need
> > > to
> > > > > > provide access to?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pardon my ignorance. I don't quite know all the capabilities and
> > > best
> > > > > > > practices for dealing with this kind of problem, so I figure
> > > it's
> > > > > faster
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > ask, even it my questions don't make sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No problem at all. It's interesting to hear about your scenario.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to