Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 19116 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2006 10:24:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2006 10:24:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 68851 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2006 10:24:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 68797 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2006 10:24:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 68786 invoked by uid 99); 15 Feb 2006 10:24:19 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:24:19 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 217.158.94.220 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of t.p.ellison@gmail.com) Received: from [217.158.94.220] (HELO cirrus.purplecloud.com) (217.158.94.220) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:24:18 -0800 Received: (qmail 5084 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2006 10:23:54 +0000 Received: from blueice1n1.uk.ibm.com (HELO ?9.20.183.163?) (195.212.29.67) by smtp.purplecloud.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 15 Feb 2006 10:23:54 +0000 Message-ID: <43F30139.1040004@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:23:53 +0000 From: Tim Ellison User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib] proposal to revisit componentization for security (was: Re: problems with security2) References: <906dd82e0601182114v3af679f5n95a58fe4fb1355fc@mail.gmail.com> <43DA3D18.10006@pobox.com> <906dd82e0602100438t5ef58d2ape7e7379b2a2d6087@mail.gmail.com> <43EC9E78.3080202@pobox.com> <906dd82e0602100727r5526e9c0r9652936b533e1d2b@mail.gmail.com> <43ECBCC0.1080606@gmail.com> <906dd82e0602100848h49b1d54au15d900d90ee62540@mail.gmail.com> <43F0B9E9.5000707@gmail.com> <906dd82e0602132136t15b977f9l9bbe37df6fa17275@mail.gmail.com> <43F1B7D3.9000204@gmail.com> <906dd82e0602140327i1f13a90hed0459f7f72e2b5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <906dd82e0602140327i1f13a90hed0459f7f72e2b5@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Mikhail Loenko wrote: > There is coupling. > BTW... Could you give an example of "close" and "weak" coupling? Sure. The goal is to define modules that represent functional units whose implementation can be contained within the module as much as possible. The measure of coupling is the number of internal-API dependencies shared between two modules. (Internal-APIs are those that Anton described, and that we are proposing to put into org.apache.harmony.. packages and explicitly export from the module.) For example, we have code like LUNI and NIO that require some non-Java-API dependencies upon one another, but these are 'weakly' coupled because they are coupled by a small number of 'internal APIs'. Where the code has a large number of implementation dependencies that you would not want to export then that is an indication of close coupling. So, for example, if we tried to separate java.io into its own module we would have lots of impl dependencies between that module and LUNI that would indicate poor modularity. Similarly trying to move the NIO buffers impls out to a separate module to NIO would result in those two modules being closely coupled. > > The following two groups of classes use the same internal stuff: > GROUP1 (use/provide inernal implementation of 'getInstance' ): Can you make this visible as an internal API (e.g. exported factory type)? > java.security.AlgorithmParameterGenerator > java.security.AlgorithmParameters > java.security.KeyFactory > java.security.KeyPairGenerator > java.security.KeyStore > java.security.KeyStoreSpi > java.security.MessageDigest > java.security.Provider > java.security.SecureRandom > java.security.Security > java.security.Signature > java.security.cert.CertPathBuilder > java.security.cert.CertPathValidator > java.security.cert.CertStore > java.security.cert.CertificateFactory > javax.crypto.Cipher > javax.crypto.ExemptionMechanism > javax.crypto.KeyAgreement > javax.crypto.KeyGenerator > javax.crypto.Mac > javax.crypto.SecretKeyFactory > javax.net.ssl.KeyManagerFactory > javax.net.ssl.SSLContext > javax.net.ssl.SSLServerSocketFactory > javax.net.ssl.SSLSocketFactory > javax.net.ssl.TrustManagerFactory > > GROUP2 (all use internal implementation of ASN.1): The ASN.1 code is a good example of an internal-API that we would want to expose to other module developers. To be clear, we are not extending the Java API here, just making it visible as a contract that replacements to must conform. > java.security.cert.PolicyQualifierInfo > java.security.cert.TrustAnchor > java.security.cert.X509CRLSelector > java.security.cert.X509CertSelector > javax.crypto.EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo > javax.security.auth.kerberos.KerberosKey > javax.security.auth.kerberos.KerberosTicket > > All other dependencies seem to be public ones. Sounds good. Regards, Tim > On 2/14/06, Tim Ellison wrote: >> Mikhail Loenko wrote: >>> Tim >>> >>> On 2/13/06, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> 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. >>> That was in the past. In 1.5 for example >>> java.security.KeyStore.SecretKeyEntry.getSecretKey() >>> returns >>> javax.crypto.SecretKey >>> >>> Method >>> java.security.AuthProvider.login() >>> takes arguments >>> javax.security.auth.Subject and javax.security.auth.callback.CallbackHandler >>> >>> Another example >>> java.net.SecureCacheResponse.getPeerPrincipal() >>> throws >>> javax.net.ssl.SSLPeerUnverifiedException >>> >>> So, none of the components is self-contained. >> Right, but these are all public type dependencies, for sure the modules >> will have many dependencies on other modules' public types. >> Do you see a close coupling of the implementation types too? >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >>> 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 >>>> well. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>>> 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 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. >>>> >> -- >> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com) >> IBM Java technology centre, UK. >> > -- Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com) IBM Java technology centre, UK.