This is not very cool. How come ? It's because there is not default edit right to guest ?

Ludovic 2012/2/16 Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> large been written bridge state, the could to implementation owner be currently needs like may be still are provide a the would have -- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

It works, I use it everyday ! Their minor differences only impact really special usage.

IMO, we may start using it for new components, or components that we are refactoring, since it will allow being independent of the old core for these component. This module may works for a while in parallel with the existing service.

By merging it, and providing it as an option, it will allows more user to try it. There is a bridge between the old service and this new one that you may simply activate in xwiki.cfg. This new service improve performance, allow adding more rights on the fly and allow customizing the way it works, so it is an answer to those wanting these improvements. It will not stay unused on my side, so be sure I will stay close to it, since I have written it because I need those improvements. I really encourage anyone to try it ! IMO, the switch will be welcome when we have discussed the small differences it has, and fix the few we do not tolerate. In particular, the startup of an empty wiki require login has superadmin with this new module. I know this require more documentation to be written, I am really aware of that, this just require time to be done... hopes Andreas and others could helps as well.

> Thanks > -Vincent > > On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> As you have probably notice, I have recently committed an >> feature-security-authorization branch on platform. I am working on this > for >> a while now and it was the first step to share the outcome of this large >> refactoring of the initial work done early last year by Andreas. Since > the >> code was not quality compliant with platform but the general structure >> Andreas has build seems to me well appropriate, I have progressively >> refactor its code to better fit our real needs. Here is what I have been >> done: >> >> 1) Split in to module api and bridge to allow breaking the currently >> unavoidable dependency on oldcore. Now only bridge depends on oldcore, > and >> the api does not depends on bridge. As mush as possible has been written > in >> the api (still some code to migrate), and some temporary internal bridge >> are used to access oldcore stuffs since augmenting the existing >> document-bridge does not seems appropriate IMO. >> >> 2) The initial enumeration of rights as been replaced by a Right class, >> which could be seen has a pseudo enum, but could be augmented with new >> rights. To register a new Right, you have to provide a RightDescription > to >> the AuthorizationManager. The description will define the default state, >> the tie resolution policy, the inheritance policy, the list of entity > types >> for which the right is applicable, the implied rights and if the right >> could be allowed in read-only mode. So new defined Right will benefit the >> whole logic of the AuthorizationManager and currently existing one could > be >> declaratively defined. >> >> 3) Large renaming to better distinguish stuffs, clarify comments and >> prepare for future. I have voluntarily not taken existing names to > clearly >> split the old and the new api. In brief, the new right service is now > named >> AuthorizationManager. Internally, it manipulates SecurityReference (as > well >> as UserSecurityReference and GroupSecurityReference, to represent > entities, >> user and group), SecurityRule (representing a right object) and >> SecurityAccess (representing an access level in the old nomenclature), >> which are store in a SecurityCache using SecurityRuleEntry (a set of > rules) >> and SecurityAccessEntry (the access of a given user). The >> AuthorizationManager delegate cache management to a SecurityCacheLoader >> which loads rules using a SecurityRuleLoader ; and delegate itself the >> computing of the access for a given user and a set of rules to an >> AuthorizationSettler. This last one could be overridden to provide > specific >> decision that could not be done in declarative mode. >> >> 4) Refactoring was necessary to improve consistency and reduce > complexity, >> and simplify as much as possible; while extending the limitations to > allow >> more rights to be registered. This work has been a little bit opposed to >> the optimization done by Andreas, in particular on memory usage. But >> optimization is often the enemy of clean code. >> >> 5) Improvement were necessary to better mimic the existing implementation >> in some peculiar but necessary rules to stay compatible with current >> working wiki. I tend to reduce as much as possible what is not done >> declaratively, but there are still some special cases, like delete for >> creators, deny for other user on explicit allow and admin for wiki owner >> that are settle by the authorization settler. My implementation should be >> almost compatible with the old one, except for groups that are currently >> not checked from the entity wiki, but only from the user wiki. This needs >> some more refactoring for which I feel inconfortable with, some I'd like > to >> share first. >> >> 6) The AuthorizationManager interface has been simplified, providing 2 >> methods for either checking or verifying an access right (the checking >> methods throws while the verifying one return a boolean), and one to >> register a new right. >> >> The existing RightService could be bridged on the new implementation > using >> the XWikiCachingRightService class in xwiki.cfg and the new API could be >> used side-by-side with the old implementation as well. What should still >> really need to be improved is the unit testing, currently some tests are >> still awful and incomplete. I already refactor some of them, to provide a >> better coverage of essential part of the code: the security cache and the >> default authorization settler. Obviously, any help is welcomed. >> >> Since I already have an existing wiki using this implementation >> successfully and using it for creating new rights for extensions, I would >> like to merge this new implementation as experimental in platform to have >> it available for anyone who need it or want to test it, and for you to > use >> in your new experimental development as well. Providing it in platform > will >> encourage it to be finalized and replace the existing implementation. >> >> Here is my +1 for the merge on 4.x, >> >> WDYT ?

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:24, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: Have I said the contrary ? All I said is that I will do my best supporting it, but this is really a large part, and some help is also welcome. I have taken the time to have it at the current state in the hope we will be able to move out of the crappy service we use currently more that 20 times per requests. It is now mature enough to start using it, since we do, and...

...no, I am not so concerned about having it in platform for using it. I now trust my module more than the existing implementation. I would like to have it in platform to encourage others to look at it, use it, adopt it and contribute to it, since I am really confident it is really better than the current implementation. IMO, there is even more work to do to use the current right service, since its own test cover only 52% of the right service itself and the documentation is really sparse and almost unwritable ! (BTW, these tests cannot be used on our bridge since these use implementation method that are not published in the interface.)

+1 if you lead the effort to making this implementation the default in the future. I'd like to know what are the next steps though and their timeframe. Denis, do you plan to refactor some existing code to use this new API? IMO this would be the best next step to prove that it works. Fo you have any idea about what code could be migrated? We need to be careful not to keep this new security module not used for too long as otherwise it could "rot". So IMO we need to start using it ASAP and then have a plan for switching to it. Thanks -Vincent On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > Hi all, > > As you have probably notice, I have recently committed an > feature-security-authorization branch on platform. I am working on this for > a while now and it was the first step to share the outcome of this large > refactoring of the initial work done early last year by Andreas. Since the > code was not quality compliant with platform but the general structure > Andreas has build seems to me well appropriate, I have progressively > refactor its code to better fit our real needs. Here is what I have been > done: > > 1) Split in to module api and bridge to allow breaking the currently > unavoidable dependency on oldcore. Now only bridge depends on oldcore, and > the api does not depends on bridge. As mush as possible has been written in > the api (still some code to migrate), and some temporary internal bridge > are used to access oldcore stuffs since augmenting the existing > document-bridge does not seems appropriate IMO. > > 2) The initial enumeration of rights as been replaced by a Right class, > which could be seen has a pseudo enum, but could be augmented with new > rights. To register a new Right, you have to provide a RightDescription to > the AuthorizationManager. The description will define the default state, > the tie resolution policy, the inheritance policy, the list of entity types > for which the right is applicable, the implied rights and if the right > could be allowed in read-only mode. So new defined Right will benefit the > whole logic of the AuthorizationManager and currently existing one could be > declaratively defined. > > 3) Large renaming to better distinguish stuffs, clarify comments and > prepare for future. I have voluntarily not taken existing names to clearly > split the old and the new api. In brief, the new right service is now named > AuthorizationManager. Internally, it manipulates SecurityReference (as well > as UserSecurityReference and GroupSecurityReference, to represent entities, > user and group), SecurityRule (representing a right object) and > SecurityAccess (representing an access level in the old nomenclature), > which are store in a SecurityCache using SecurityRuleEntry (a set of rules) > and SecurityAccessEntry (the access of a given user). The > AuthorizationManager delegate cache management to a SecurityCacheLoader > which loads rules using a SecurityRuleLoader ; and delegate itself the > computing of the access for a given user and a set of rules to an > AuthorizationSettler. This last one could be overridden to provide specific > decision that could not be done in declarative mode. > > 4) Refactoring was necessary to improve consistency and reduce complexity, > and simplify as much as possible; while extending the limitations to allow > more rights to be registered. This work has been a little bit opposed to > the optimization done by Andreas, in particular on memory usage. But > optimization is often the enemy of clean code. > > 5) Improvement were necessary to better mimic the existing implementation > in some peculiar but necessary rules to stay compatible with current > working wiki. I tend to reduce as much as possible what is not done > declaratively, but there are still some special cases, like delete for > creators, deny for other user on explicit allow and admin for wiki owner > that are settle by the authorization settler. My implementation should be > almost compatible with the old one, except for groups that are currently > not checked from the entity wiki, but only from the user wiki. This needs > some more refactoring for which I feel inconfortable with, some I'd like to > share first. > > 6) The AuthorizationManager interface has been simplified, providing 2 > methods for either checking or verifying an access right (the checking > methods throws while the verifying one return a boolean), and one to > register a new right. > > The existing RightService could be bridged on the new implementation using > the XWikiCachingRightService class in xwiki.cfg and the new API could be > used side-by-side with the old implementation as well. What should still > really need to be improved is the unit testing, currently some tests are > still awful and incomplete. I already refactor some of them, to provide a > better coverage of essential part of the code: the security cache and the > default authorization settler. Obviously, any help is welcomed. > > Since I already have an existing wiki using this implementation > successfully and using it for creating new rights for extensions, I would > like to merge this new implementation as experimental in platform to have > it available for anyone who need it or want to test it, and for you to use > in your new experimental development as well. Providing it in platform will > encourage it to be finalized and replace the existing implementation. > > Here is my +1 for the merge on 4.x, > > WDYT ?

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:18, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: Have you read my initial mail about this merge proposal ? The branch was there for a while, and I see that merging is the best way to have you look at it :) It's a good start but there are quite a few things to improve: The tests in the bridge are bad, those came directly from the initial contribution of Andreas, these are not properly mocked, neither properly structured. I have kept them until we have better.

This is unfair, this happen mostly in tests. I will try to improve it anyway. Not easy to put @since until we know when we merge, will be improved. Would be nice not have to do that manually :) I have written the test in the api module. Those in the api module are properly mocked and covers the most critical part (right, settler, data structure, cache) at almost 100%, and the whole api module at 60% currently. I see the api module as the most solid one, and the bridge as a temporary one, until we go further, but I fully agree that we need to improve tests in both. Your help is welcome :)