activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ JNDI support only for testing?
Date Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:28:48 GMT
I'm really mystified by why you want to rely on remote ldap to look up  
a connection factory or destinations.  I don't think you've thought  
through what information needs to be distributed where by what means  
and I think you are going towards a much harder to administer  
heavyweight solution than you need.

For connection factories:

ldap:  you need to tell each client where the ldap server is.

amq properties file: you need to tell each client the broker url to use

This is the same amount of information... but with the properties file  
you don't need an ldap server.

Furthermore, IMO the ldap solution won't really work except for  
clients that are small enough to not need connection pooling.  Even  
for implementations that might be able to export a connection pooling  
connection factory from remote ldap, I can't imagine that you'd want  
the pooling configuration anywhere but in the application that needs  
the pooling.

For destinations with security:

You need broker side authorization anyway, since any client can just  
create a connection factory and destinations without ldap anyway.  So  
what good does it do to set up the destinations in ldap?

I'm not trying to tell you what you should or shouldn't do, but I'd  
like to understand how ldap actually meets your needs... and not  
getting it.

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:56 AM, janylj wrote:

>
> Hello Huntc,
>
> I read your blog especially the Authorisation part. I think we are  
> talking
> about the same thing. The LDAP server I set up also uses ACI to  
> grant or
> limit the access to specific topic/queue.
>
> I guess this discussion is mainly about whether ActiveMQ has an  
> embedded
> JNDI provider for centralized management. Because the LDAP server I  
> have to
> set up is exclusive for ActiveMQ, however, the availability of LDAP  
> server
> is separate from ActiveMQ. In other words, if LDAP says you could  
> use this
> queue, you still could not use the queue if ActiveMQ broker is down.  
> Vice
> versa, if LDAP server is down, although all the resources are  
> available in
> the JMS broker, you still could not uses any of them.
>
> Lijun
>
>
> huntc wrote:
>>
>>
>> janylj wrote:
>>>
>>> I was trying to have a centralized repository of destinations and
>>> ConnectionFactory. I could use a uniform namespace for destination  
>>> to
>>> avoid conflicting. However, I don't want to allow users creating
>>> destination or ConnectionFactory on the fly. I would like them  
>>> accessing
>>> the broker only through administrative objects.
>>>
>>
>> I believe you are going about this the wrong way. What you really  
>> want is
>> topic/queue authorisation i.e. only let certain authenticated users  
>> do
>> certain things within the broker.
>>
>> You might find my blog entry on securing ActiveMQ useful.  
>> Authorisation is
>> covered.
>>
>> http://christopherhunt-software.blogspot.com/2009/03/mutual-ssl-authentication-and-ldap.html
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-JNDI-support-only-for-testing--tp21925743p22583570.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


Mime
View raw message