Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5720EA20 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:16:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7880 invoked by uid 500); 7 Mar 2013 10:16:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 7492 invoked by uid 500); 7 Mar 2013 10:16:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 7460 invoked by uid 99); 7 Mar 2013 10:16:13 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:16:13 +0000 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:16:13 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?Q?Jan_H=C3=B8ydahl_=28JIRA=29?= To: dev@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-4470) Support for basic http auth in internal solr requests MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4470?page=3Dcom.atlassian.= jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D13595= 742#comment-13595742 ]=20 Jan H=C3=B8ydahl commented on SOLR-4470: ----------------------------------- bq. It would be ok for me to change the syntax into JSON, or maybe support = both, but that ought to be another improvement-jira. Sure bq. Primarily I added them because those methods are used a lot from testin= g-code where I want to provide credentials Hmm, perhaps make the new convenience methods protected to avoid public use= and keep test code nice (if tests are in same pkg). Then we don't commit t= o supporting a new API right now and we can decide later how or whether to = refactor this. Is it ok for you to continue on the trunk patch from now? The alternative i= s to make one for branch_4x. It's pros and cons. Maybe a branch_4x patch wi= ll attract more 4.1 users to try it out in their existing dev/test envs? Wh= at do others say? =20 > Support for basic http auth in internal solr requests > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-4470 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4470 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: clients - java, multicore, replication (java), SolrC= loud > Affects Versions: 4.0 > Reporter: Per Steffensen > Labels: authentication, https, solrclient, solrcloud, ssl > Fix For: 4.2, 5.0 > > Attachments: SOLR-4470_branch_4x_r1452629.patch, SOLR-4470_branch= _4x_r1452629.patch, SOLR-4470.patch > > > We want to protect any HTTP-resource (url). We want to require credential= s no matter what kind of HTTP-request you make to a Solr-node. > It can faily easy be acheived as described on http://wiki.apache.org/solr= /SolrSecurity. This problem is that Solr-nodes also make "internal" request= to other Solr-nodes, and for it to work credentials need to be provided he= re also. > Ideally we would like to "forward" credentials from a particular request = to all the "internal" sub-requests it triggers. E.g. for search and update = request. > But there are also "internal" requests > * that only indirectly/asynchronously triggered from "outside" requests (= e.g. shard creation/deletion/etc based on calls to the "Collection API") > * that do not in any way have relation to an "outside" "super"-request (e= .g. replica synching stuff) > We would like to aim at a solution where "original" credentials are "forw= arded" when a request directly/synchronously trigger a subrequest, and fall= back to a configured "internal credentials" for the asynchronous/non-rooted= requests. > In our solution we would aim at only supporting basic http auth, but we w= ould like to make a "framework" around it, so that not to much refactoring = is needed if you later want to make support for other kinds of auth (e.g. d= igest) > We will work at a solution but create this JIRA issue early in order to g= et input/comments from the community as early as possible. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrato= rs For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org