Page History

...

From the authentication point of view the API flow is radically much simpler:

Instead of the current situation where the application has to directly read and write AMQP SASL frames using pn_sasl_recv(), pn_sasl_send() etc. the meat of the protocol interchange happens behind the scenes and instead the application has to set up authentication parameters and then allow the protocol handling loop to handle SASL without application intervention.

...

By default the server will adapt to whatever layers the client attempts to use to communicate. But the application can specify that the connection must be encrypted or authenticated (using pn_transport_require_encryption() and pn_transport_require_auth() ). Also if required the server application can force the SASL layer to use the ANONYMOUS mechanism or to exclude some mechanisms that might be installed on the system (by using pn_sasl_force_anonymous() or pn_sasl_exclude_mechs() ). The location and name of the configuration file used by the SASL implementation can be changed by using the pn_sasl_config_name() and pn_sasl_config_path() APIs.

The outcome of the authentication process at both server and client sides is indicated by a transport event. In the case of authentication failure it will be a PN_TRANSPORT_ERROR event, and the case of success it will a PN_TRANSPORT_AUTHENTICATED event. Once the authentication event has been received the server can discover who it is talking to by using the pn_transport_get_user() API. If required the mechanism used can be recovered using pn_sasl_get_mech().

SASL

The biggest functional changes happen in the SASL layer code where the API has largely changed, very little backwards compatibility has been kept, because it is fairly clear that very few (if any) people have been using the current API to implement their own SASL mechanisms. If this turns out to be untrue, then we could add some further measure of backwards compatibility as required.

...