{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tavendo/WAMP/issues/184","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tavendo/WAMP/issues/184/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tavendo/WAMP/issues/184/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tavendo/WAMP/issues/184/events","html_url":"https://github.com/tavendo/WAMP/issues/184","id":105789908,"number":184,"title":"Let the callee decide by protocol who calls it ","user":{"login":"konsultaner","id":2699538,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2699538?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner","html_url":"https://github.com/konsultaner","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/konsultaner/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":8,"created_at":"2015-09-10T11:46:25Z","updated_at":"2015-09-11T06:30:18Z","closed_at":"2015-09-10T20:22:08Z","body":"At the moment only the router is responsible to decide whether a caller is allowed to call a callees remote procedures or not. But the router should be a black box that could be a part of any scenario without the need of extra router logic. Also the router should be interchangeable for a general WAMP implementation.\r\n\r\nThe WAMP-Protocol itself does not explicitly support the three listed requirements in my eyes. \r\n\r\nThe crossbar.io implementation supports a [dynamic and static](http://crossbar.io/docs/Authorization/) way to tell the router who is allowed to call a certain procedure and who isn't. The dynamic approach makes it not interchangeable with another implementation out of the box.\r\n\r\nIf the message Register had a caller black/white listing as written in issue #181, the router would have to implement a behavior where the callee decides on registration who is allowed to call it's methods and who isn't.\r\n\r\nThis is very similar to some MVC implementations where the callee is kind of equal to a controller. The following pseudo code shows a callee with an annotated method to make it clearer.\r\n\r\n    class Callee {\r\n\r\n        @roles(someRole1,someRole2)\r\n        void myMethod(){\r\n             ....\r\n        }\r\n\r\n    }\r\n     \r\n\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tavendo/WAMP/issues/comments/139463966","html_url":"https://github.com/tavendo/WAMP/issues/184#issuecomment-139463966","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tavendo/WAMP/issues/184","id":139463966,"user":{"login":"oberstet","id":233340,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233340?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet","html_url":"https://github.com/oberstet","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oberstet/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-09-11T06:30:18Z","updated_at":"2015-09-11T06:30:18Z","body":"The difference is:\r\n\r\n1. with dynamic authorization, the Crossbar administrator stays in control and still decides if and for what URIs a dynamic authorizer component is consulted\r\n2. the dynamic authorizer component centralizes authorization code\r\n3. the dynamic authorizer component can be guarded\r\n\r\nNone of above is the case if you distribute authorization code all over your actual business components.\r\n\r\nThere is only one valid use case where authorization code must reside in the actual business component being called: and that is if the authorization depends on the app payload (args/kwargs)\r\n\r\nE.g my example with place order being allowed/disallowed depending on the order amount.\r\n\r\nIf you need that, it's the callee's (business component) responsibility to allow/deny.\r\n\r\nAs in: routers must not bother with app payload. Crossbar is design to follow that strictly. It will only touch the app payload for 2 reasons:\r\n\r\n* convert between different serialization formats\r\n* validate the application payload against a configured schema (an unreleased feature of CB, where you configure JSON schemata on URIs, and CB will validate the payload against that).\r\n\r\nAgain, I don't care at all what EJBs or what do or did or plan to do. They can do whatever they want. As we can do with WAMP here. But I do care massively about upholding the integrity and coherence of the design principles of WAMP.\r\n\r\n**LAST**: All the discussion above is specific to CB and shouldn't happen here."}}