harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] proposal to revisit componentization for security (was: Re: problems with security2)
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:55:05 GMT
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> It looks good but it is not clear where would you put certification stuff.
> According to SUN's guide it is splitted between JSSE and general security.
> (According to SUN general security includes also crypto architecture)

I wouldn't get too hung up about where Sun put it.  There is likely a
different partitioning about where the architectural/semantic boundaries
are best placed, and how we componentize the implementation.

Looking into this a bit more, the certificate management
(java.security.cert.*) code should likely go in 'general security'.

It is mostly instinct behind the decision, but that was formed by the
following reasoning:

Historical - JCE, JSSE and JAAS used to be optional packages for the JDK
at a time when the certificate management code was included in the JDK
By process of exclusion - the other modules ('crypto', 'x-net' and
'jaas') are self-contained and can be removed without breaking any other
APIs.  Removing certificate management would break APIs in java.util.jar
and java.security so it doesn't make sense to separate it from them.

US Export Control office is less interested in digital
signing/verification than they are in the cryptography and secure
communications packages.  Keeping them pluggable makes sense.

Perhaps we should name the 'jaas' package 'auth'.  JAAS may be a
protected trademark.  The org.ietf.jgss package may belong in 'auth' as


> I'd rather put it  into crypto (or maybe into x-net) - all of them use
> service-provider architecture. What do you think?
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
> On 2/10/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>> What I'd like to propose is:
>>> 1. separate Authentication and Authorization stuff (javax.security
>>> package) from general security
>> Ok, so I can see this.
>>> 2. unite crypto (java.security) and crypto extension (javax.crypto)
>> but this makes no sense to me.  Why would you want to unite JCE with
>> general security?  There is no close coupling afaict.
>> How about
>>  - general security
>>  - crypto
>>  - x-net
>>  - jaas
>> there may be good reason to want to replace crypto independently of
>> general security.  Am I missing something?
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>> --
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.


Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

View raw message