cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sergey Beryozkin" <>
Subject Re : WS-SX
Date Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:27:55 GMT
Hi Dan

Here's a follow-up mail.

I was thinking that it would help if we look at a concrete user query [1].
Note that there's a WS-SecurityPolicy policy expression attached to the WSDL contract.

The user has tried this WSDL with a policy expression in Metro and it worked for him. I've
no doubt it will for him with quite a few other stacks. Please also note that no private stuff
is located in the policy itself. How Metro achieved hiding the private stuff is immaterial.

Now, when we're talking about supporting WS-SecurityPolicy, we need to be concrete about exactly
are we talking about. If a user asks [1], can I do it in CXF, what will be our answer once
we start claiming we support WS-SecurityPolicy ?

As I said I start feeling that the way you see CXF "supporting" WS-SecurityPolicy is that
we look at what is possible to enable with WS-SecurityPolicy expressions and then translate
it all into corresponding feature expressions. As I said it will mean that we will support
no WS-SecurityPolicy but WS-Security. That's why I've quotes about "supporting". As such the
only answer we could give to users asking questions like [1] is that they'll have to convert
the security policy expressions into corresponding CXF configuration artifacts. I don't think
it'll be good enough. I'll be happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood the way you envisage
it all and I apologize in advance if it's the case. 

Supporting WS-SecurityPolicy means  :
* runtime should be capable of accepting explicit policy expressions such as those shown at
[1]. As we've discussed
there's a number of ways to provide the missing private stuff to the runtime
* When a secure service provider publishes its WSDL, this WSDL has to contain WS-SecurityPolicy
expressions in the right attachment points inline or through external references. (optional

This is what I believe will make "CXF supports WS-SecurityPolicy" a true statement.

Now if there's a strong interest behind providing a WS-Security feature which will let users
to basically set up the runtime by providing it the same info WS-SecurityPolicy policies can
give it, then it's fare enough. It's likely some users will want to use this option. I just
don't think it has something to do with the work required to support WS-SecurityPolicy. 

Thanks, Sergey

IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message