Hey Joakim,
On 12/6/12 6:03 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> From the point of view of a long-lived websocket on the server side,
> can we expect these objects to always be valid?
>
> Are implementations expected to ensure that access to HttpSession will
> always work?
> In other words, keeping the HttpSession alive/valid/unexpired/active,
> along with any Principals associated with it?
Actually I'm not proposing the HttpSession be kept alive. Just that it
be available at the time of the opening handshake.
I am proposing the Principal established at opening handshake be
available to the websocket session for as long as the Principal is still
authorized for the websocket.
> Also what is the role of HttpSession.getLastAccessedTime()
> <http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/5/api/javax/servlet/http/HttpSession.html#getLastAccessedTime%28%29>
> for implementations of this JSR?
This means as far as the JSR is concerned, the HttpSession is only
marked active when an Http request is made (at the opening handshake),
not when websocket messages go back and forth.
> Is the JSR going to dictate that implementations keep HttpSession
> alive and current based on activity on the WebSocket?
We thought it might at one point, but have moved away from that idea,
because we don't think it could be implemented without changing the
expiry date on cookies in the client, which, obviously, we cannot do
from the server.
> Should implementations of the JSR do anything special if the
> HttpSession is invalidated (by for example different Servlet that
> calls HttpSession.invalidate())?
It depends. What I think needs to happen is that if the server decides
the Principal is no longer authorized, the websocket, if it is
protected, should be closed. If that situation is somehow caused
because of HttpSession.invalidate being called, then that is how those
two things might be related in an implementation.
> Example reaction would be to force an automatic close (status code
> 1001, Going Away/Shutdown) of the server websocket if the HttpSession
> is invalidated.
I think the expert group discussion seemed to be saying that the
relationship between HttpSession invalidate and the Principal no longer
being valid is not a clear one in all implementations and modes of
authentication. So I'm trying to craft the spec in terms of the validity
of the Principal, not the HttpSession.
Does that make sense ?
- Danny
>
> --
> Joakim Erdfelt <joakim_at_intalio.com <mailto:joakim_at_intalio.com>>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Danny Coward <danny.coward_at_oracle.com
> <mailto:danny.coward_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> OK, so in the spirit of trying to close out this discussion and
> find what is reasonable to require in the specification, what it
> looks like to me we are left with is this:-
>
> 1) The only association between websocket session and HttpSession
> is at opening handshake time. The API gives developers a
> convenient access to the HttpSession object at that point in time.
> 2) The user identity associated with the websocket Session is the
> user identity that was established at the opening handshake.
> 2) If the server decides that authorization for this websocket
> resource by this user identity has ended (it expired, or some
> logout mechanism was invoked) then the websocket implementation
> must immediately close the connection.
>
> (from my read of the websocket spec, the most suitable close code
> for the latter is 1008).
>
> Is there anything else that we need to specify ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Danny
>
>
>
> On 11/28/12 11:49 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> Unfortunately even form authentication does not have the same
>> lifecycle as HTTP Session.
>>
>> Sure if the HTTPSession is invalidated then then a form Auth user is
>> logged out. But a users authentication/authorization can be revoked
>> during the life of a HttpSession (eg their credit expires in some
>> central JAAS server). For that reason Form auth will often store the
>> credentials in the session and revalidate them on every request.
>> Basic/Digest authentication revalidate on each request by their
>> nature.
>>
>> I really don't think we want to get into that situation for websocket,
>> as it could be a considerable burden to validate credentials on every
>> message received before calling any handlers. If we don't validate
>> on every message, then we are essentially saying that the identity
>> associated with every message is the identity as it was established
>> during the handshake - in which case I don't think we should be
>> associating with the HTTPsession (unless the application does so
>> explicitly).
>>
>> Or maybe we do want to validate the identity on every message and just
>> warn users that constraint protected messages can be very expensive?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.oracle.com> *Danny Coward *
> Java EE
> Oracle Corporation
>
>
--
<http://www.oracle.com> *Danny Coward *
Java EE
Oracle Corporation