[javaee-spec users] Re: [jsr366-experts] Java EE Security API

From: arjan tijms <>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:19:25 +0200


On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <>

> Anyway back to security: the usage of jaspic is IMO a blocker, not
> integrated to CDI, not natural, and needs a lot of "tool" code to work
> (Arjan samples are great to realize it), so if EE security wants to use
> jaspic it should hide all that

That's exactly what JSR 375 does ;)

Integrating with CDI and hiding the setup code.

As I mentioned earlier, the "setup code" (the AuthConfig, AuthContext) etc,
was actually not intended to be a user facing thing. The intention was that
a user just provided an implementation of the ServerAuthModule (SAM).

If you register a SAM with the server via the admin console, CLI,
domain.xml, standalone.xml etc that's exactly what you do.

Also note that we would not push users towards using bare JASPIC. It's like
many security frameworks using some JAAS code (even PicketLink), so they
need JAAS to be there as a dependency. JAAS is perhaps not that natural
either, certainly not integrated with CDI etc, but it needs to be there.

Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms

> (and nicely make it not mandatory by that track, but that's just a nice
> side effect ;)). Said otherwise I kind of worry that to be usable we need
> omnifaces or a soteria tool module - not saying they are bad but that the
> entry cost is way too high.
> Concerning the "is SE in scope" I'm not sure but if you rephrase is "is
> not HTTP in scope" then it should be by design cause EE has concurrency
> utilities, jbatch, @Asynchronous, @Schedule etc... which can use security
> either by propagation or by direct late invocation. A very high part of
> these usages will not work with HTTP (note the propagation will be crucial
> and should be spec-ed at EE level to avoid a usage mess). If it is bridged
> and user still relies on HttpAuthenticationMechanism then the API is
> still unatural, will need mocking (which rarely helps to understand it) and
> will still require this state and protocol handling which will makes the
> adoption step way higher than it should be IMHO.
> For all these doubts I don't think we are ready to be prime time so full
> profile only is saner for this release until a huge amount of work is done.
> Side note 1: mvnrepository stats are limited which means they can't be use
> to check adoption (ex: deltaspike security api is more the ~ 2600 download
> *last month*). This fully ignore ("normally") the company frameworks which
> are nuuuummmeeerous for security and all end user applications.
> Side note 2: not sure how polls help, think we should rather try on real
> application the API to see how it fits and what's the gap cause polls are
> really biaised, in particular on tweeter where network are partial until
> you hit 100k followers for most person retweeting.
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <> | Blog
> <> | Old Blog
> <> | Github
> <> | LinkedIn
> <> | JavaEE Factory
> <>
> 2017-04-11 9:36 GMT+02:00 Guillermo González de Agüero <
>> I personally think bringing JASPIC to the Web Profile is not a big deal
>> since, as have been said, all mayor plain Servlet Containers already do
>> that, and even the Servlet spec has been talking about explicitly requiring
>> it.
>> JACC is another story, but then, JSR 375 can work without it so that's
>> not a problem at all.
>> So big +1 from me on adding JSR 375 to the web profile, even if that
>> needs to also pull JASPIC.
>> El mar., 11 de abril de 2017 0:53, arjan tijms <>
>> escribió:
>>> Could be a good idea indeed.
>>> I'm of course strongly, strongly biased, but I know from application
>>> development and working with a lot of different devs in application
>>> development, that something like a basic security for JAX-RS endpoints in a
>>> fully portable and app controlled way is something that comes up each and
>>> every time.
>> Interestingly, JAX-RS is not part of the Web Profile.
>>> Basically just something like defining this: (pre JSR 375 syntax)
>>> ess-token.html
>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:47 AM, reza_rahman <>
>>> wrote:
>>> If needed, I suggest doing a simple community poll (e.g. via Twitter) to
>>> help determine this. As I said, I suspect there is very strong desire for
>>> this functionality in all profiles.
>>> What do other people in this EG think? I know activity has been sparse
>>> for quite a few months, but surely we all have some opinions on this?
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: reza_rahman <>
>>> Date: 4/10/17 4:38 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jsr366-experts] Java EE Security
>>> API
>>> I actually think what we have now is pretty useful. Given the strong
>>> support for security in all the Java EE surveys, I think it sends the wrong
>>> message not to include it in the Web Profile. I don't see that there is any
>>> future where the security API does not wind up in pretty much all
>>> significant Java EE profiles.