Markus, I was only referring to Bill's idea that it would be good to
have some standard way to do Basic Auth/etc.
I'm not sure how far/if at all we can go about supporting @RolesAllowed
in 2.1 - there are pieces of work to be done around the proposed NIO/etc
API improvements (proposed by the spec leads), minor items proposed by
us, and here I'd indeed support having something standard, loosely typed
authentication API introduced given that indeed Basic Auth is only one
of several options these days.
@RolesAllowed is similar to Basic Auth, it is kind of outdated really,
and other forms of the access control should be taken into the
consideration, it was proposed by one of experts/users before that
@Scopes (OAuth2 access token related) get introduced, etc.
Sergey
On 02/03/16 18:58, markus_at_headcrashing.eu wrote:
>
> May I interpret you answer as "Yes, JAX-RS 2.1 MUST specify a common
> way to enable @RolesAllowed, and CXF will implement it ASAP"?
>
> Zitat von Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com>:
>
>> On 01/03/16 18:11, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> I'd like to see some clarification on this too. If your jax-rs
>>> service is an EJB, I believe the spec says @RolesAllowed is supposed
>>> to be honoured, but JAX-RS has no other annotations to define things
>>> like transport requirements (Is SSL required), nor does it define a
>>> way to specify an authentication protocol (BASIC, FORM, CERT, SAML,
>>> OIDC, etc.). So, you end up still having to define security
>>> constraints and login config within web.xml.
>>>
>>> Security is very undefined on the client. There's no standard way
>>> of doing BASIC auth. BASIC auth still seems to be used even though
>>> OAuth and other token based architectures are starting to be prevelant.
>>>
>> The users start driving it :-), opened few minutes ago
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-6817
>>
>> The only standard way I know of is to create an Authorization header
>> manually and set it on the target
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>
>>> On 3/1/2016 12:28 PM, markus_at_headcrashing.eu wrote:
>>>> Experts,
>>>>
>>>> I hope you're in the mood for another small spec clarification in
>>>> the hope to further align Jersey, WebSphere, CXF and RestEasy. :-)
>>>>
>>>> The current Jersey manual says that it will respect role-based
>>>> security annotations (@PermitAll, @DenyAll, @RolesAllowd; according
>>>> to JSR 250 "Common Annotations for the Java Platform") as soon as a
>>>> Jersey-specific filter is EXPLICITLY enabled by means of JAX-RS
>>>> feature config API. If I understood the WebSphere manual correctly,
>>>> I respects these annotations BY DEFAULT. According chapter 36 of
>>>> its manual, it seems as if RESTeasy wants EXPLICIT enabling by
>>>> Servlet web.xml. CXF on the other hand apparantly wants the
>>>> deployer to enable an interceptor EXPLICITLY. So all those JAX-RS
>>>> products process these annotations, but each has a different way to
>>>> enable it. Looking through the eyes of an ISV, this is real
>>>> pain-in-the-* since security is a must-have in all non-trivial
>>>> products and nobody wants to provide four different configs for the
>>>> same off-the-shelf app.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to suggest that the spec 2.1 defines ONE COMMON way which
>>>> enables security on ALL JAX-RS products.
>>>>
>>>> I have two proposals:
>>>>
>>>> (a) Enable it by default. It should not do any real harm regarding
>>>> backwards compatibility. This way, nobody has to worry about
>>>> security besides adding above role annotations.
>>>>
>>>> (b) Enable it explicitly by adding @Secured on the Application
>>>> class. I think this is ugly as the existence of above annotations
>>>> already imply that security is wanted.
>>>>
>>>> As all products already support the functionality, we just need to
>>>> agree upon a SINGLE way to enable it. I think people simply expect
>>>> this in 2.1.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> -Markus
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>