[Hawkular-dev] Should Keycloak integration be optional?

[Juraci Paixão Kröhling]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/04/2015 03:23 PM, Heiko Braun wrote:
> Does keycloak support other auth mechanisms that don't build on
> http?

No. Keycloak is a "super OAuth" solution, and that's on top of HTTP.
What kind of other authentication mechanisms are you thinking about?

> Does keycloak limit the reuse of hawkular components?

Not that I'm aware of. All it does is to put a layer between the
incoming request and the business method on the backend, like JAAS.

> Does keycloak have a desirable out-of-the-box experience? (Read
> addtional setup costs)

Depends on the definition of "desirable". Right now, the common
practice for projects consuming Keycloak seems to build an "appliance"
distribution, which builds on top of Wildfly and delivers Keycloak
pre-installed/configured + the target application (hawkular, in our
case).

- - Juca.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU0iyOAAoJECKM1e+fkPrXj+AH/2hF7EBlQ2n7VVSbkjGLODgo
C33cMgBpsonGUFZcd8LXAOdl2ZpklpRzjdcOpVB6OJUasV5Ek/pONyTn8LMStJzV
nJrHTBKtR71+V9+A2g/cSbv4x7vynhNqSAHEq3a+OwEhzZ8DT+sQnxFRr+QdMMWh
e+QiVUBCgx/4IBL1gsw40OBy/I1d7NULwS7fzMvunnacHYEibZc4ACgQwy/LPCih
xbAmYn8SP5IgLT+TqLSnNUMJps44phkdYsSkku3wotH9YkOI55PNlYU9iTbYa9kr
SCe1aIeIeA5hooCVJ92FMeRF5Pyf9OOgn1flKdurC0nvdWBe3mIlza32KOWLY9U=
=ZYJJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----