Skip to content

[Proposal][AMQ-9244] Add proposal for OAuth 2.0 #1473

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kenliao94
Copy link
Contributor

@kenliao94 kenliao94 commented Jul 13, 2025

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member

Did you see my first PR about that: #1035 ?

@jbonofre jbonofre self-requested a review July 13, 2025 07:26
@mattrpav
Copy link
Contributor

I think we need a pluggable sub-module to support provider-specifics of this. There is a lack of consistency in form fields and providers vary on what login types and flows they support.

Example: OIDCProvider

  • createRequest( .. ) // delegate the creation of the HTTP request
  • processResponse( .. ) // delegate the response parsing

A DefaultOIDCProvider can ship, but also allow for simple injection of custom handling or provider-specific handler.

I think we can share the HTTP client handling and most of the JWT parsing between providers. I suggest JDK http client and HYTE can donate a JWT unmarshaller.

Outstanding: Logout flow needs to be addressed.

@kenliao94
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think we need a pluggable sub-module to support provider-specifics of this. There is a lack of consistency in form fields and providers vary on what login types and flows they support.

Example: OIDCProvider

* createRequest( .. ) // delegate the creation of the HTTP request

* processResponse( .. ) // delegate the response parsing

A DefaultOIDCProvider can ship, but also allow for simple injection of custom handling or provider-specific handler.

I think we can share the HTTP client handling and most of the JWT parsing between providers. I suggest JDK http client and HYTE can donate a JWT unmarshaller.

Outstanding: Logout flow needs to be addressed.

Thanks @mattrpav will address the logout flow and incorporate the feedback of a pluggable sub-module

@kenliao94
Copy link
Contributor Author

Did you see my first PR about that: #1035 ?

Yes @jbonofre this design doc and prototyping referenced your PR. However, do you see any implementation in this design doc that goes against your vision? From #1035 (comment) seems like that PR is not ready yet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants