Pros of Spring Security

• Extensive documentation and large community support
• Comprehensive security features, including OAuth2 and SAML integration
• Seamless integration with other Spring projects

Cons of Spring Security

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• More complex configuration and setup process
• Potentially heavier resource usage for smaller applications

Code Comparison

Spring Security configuration:

@Configuration
@EnableWebSecurity
public class SecurityConfig extends WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter {
    @Override
    protected void configure(HttpSecurity http) throws Exception {
        http.authorizeRequests()
            .antMatchers("/public/**").permitAll()
            .anyRequest().authenticated()
            .and().formLogin();
    }
}

Sa-Token configuration:

@Configuration
public class SaTokenConfigure implements WebMvcConfigurer {
    @Override
    public void addInterceptors(InterceptorRegistry registry) {
        registry.addInterceptor(new SaInterceptor(handle -> StpUtil.checkLogin()))
            .addPathPatterns("/**").excludePathPatterns("/public/**");
    }
}

Both Spring Security and Sa-Token offer robust security solutions for Java applications. Spring Security provides a more comprehensive set of features and integrations, making it suitable for complex enterprise applications. Sa-Token, on the other hand, offers a simpler and more lightweight approach, which can be beneficial for smaller projects or those requiring quick implementation. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project, team expertise, and desired level of customization.

Pros of jjwt

• Focused specifically on JWT implementation, providing a robust and comprehensive solution for JWT handling
• Extensive documentation and examples, making it easier for developers to integrate and use
• Supports various cryptographic algorithms and is regularly updated to address security concerns

Cons of jjwt

• Limited to JWT functionality, lacking broader authentication and authorization features
• Requires more manual configuration and integration with other security components
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to JWT concepts

Code Comparison

Sa-Token (Login and session creation):

StpUtil.login(10001);
String token = StpUtil.getTokenValue();

jjwt (JWT creation):

String jwt = Jwts.builder()
    .setSubject("user123")
    .signWith(SignatureAlgorithm.HS256, key)
    .compact();

Summary

Sa-Token is a comprehensive authentication and authorization framework for Java applications, offering a wide range of features beyond just token handling. It provides a simpler API for common authentication tasks and includes built-in support for various scenarios.

jjwt, on the other hand, is a specialized library focused solely on JSON Web Token (JWT) implementation. It offers more flexibility and control over JWT creation, parsing, and validation but requires additional integration for complete authentication solutions.

The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project. Sa-Token is better suited for projects needing a full-featured authentication framework, while jjwt is ideal for applications requiring fine-grained control over JWT handling.

Pros of java-jwt

• Focused specifically on JWT implementation, providing a lightweight and specialized solution
• Backed by Auth0, a well-known identity platform, ensuring regular updates and support
• Extensive documentation and examples available for easy integration

Cons of java-jwt

• Limited to JWT functionality, lacking broader authentication and authorization features
• Requires additional libraries or custom code for complete authentication workflows
• Less flexibility in token storage and session management compared to Sa-Token

Code Comparison

Sa-Token example:

// Login
StpUtil.login(10001);
// Get login ID
String loginId = StpUtil.getLoginId();
// Check login status
boolean isLogin = StpUtil.isLogin();

java-jwt example:

// Create JWT
String token = JWT.create()
    .withClaim("user_id", 10001)
    .sign(algorithm);
// Verify JWT
DecodedJWT jwt = JWT.require(algorithm)
    .build()
    .verify(token);

Sa-Token offers a higher-level abstraction for authentication, while java-jwt focuses on JWT creation and verification. Sa-Token provides built-in session management and login status checks, whereas java-jwt requires additional implementation for these features. The choice between the two depends on project requirements and the desired level of control over the authentication process.

Pros of pac4j

• Multi-protocol support: Handles various authentication mechanisms (OAuth, SAML, OpenID Connect, etc.)
• Highly extensible and customizable
• Language-agnostic, with implementations for Java, Scala, and more

Cons of pac4j

• Steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive nature
• May be overkill for simple authentication scenarios
• Less focused on Chinese market and documentation compared to Sa-Token

Code Comparison

Sa-Token (Java):

// Login
StpUtil.login(10001);
// Get login ID
String loginId = StpUtil.getLoginId();
// Logout
StpUtil.logout();

pac4j (Java):

// Perform authentication
CommonProfile profile = client.getUserProfile(credentials, context);
// Get user ID
String userId = profile.getId();
// Logout
context.getSessionStore().destroySession(context.getWebContext());

Both libraries provide straightforward authentication methods, but Sa-Token's API appears more concise for basic operations. pac4j offers more flexibility and protocol support at the cost of slightly more verbose code.

Pros of CAS

• Mature and widely adopted enterprise-grade SSO solution
• Supports a wide range of authentication protocols and integrations
• Highly customizable and extensible architecture

Cons of CAS

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Heavier resource requirements for deployment
• May be overkill for smaller projects or simpler authentication needs

Code Comparison

Sa-Token (Java):

// Login
StpUtil.login(10001);
// Get login ID
String loginId = StpUtil.getLoginId();
// Check login status
boolean isLogin = StpUtil.isLogin();

CAS (Java):

// Validate ticket
Assertion assertion = ticketValidator.validate(ticket, service);
// Get principal
AttributePrincipal principal = assertion.getPrincipal();
// Get attributes
Map<String, Object> attributes = principal.getAttributes();

Key Differences

• Sa-Token is lightweight and focuses on simplifying token-based authentication
• CAS is a comprehensive SSO solution with broader protocol support
• Sa-Token has a more straightforward API for basic authentication tasks
• CAS offers more advanced features like multi-factor authentication and delegated authentication

Both projects serve different use cases, with Sa-Token being more suitable for simpler, token-based authentication needs, while CAS is better suited for complex enterprise environments requiring robust SSO capabilities.