[keycloak-dev] release? Stan?

[Bill Burke]

On 12/2/2014 10:11 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> On 12/2/2014 9:02 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
>>> To: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 2:38:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] release?  Stan?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/2/2014 7:55 AM, Stan Silvert wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/2014 4:52 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>>> Should we upgrade to WF 8.2 and also do some changes to the distro before
>>>>> release?
>>>> I don't see a reason not to go to WF 8.2.  If we do that, let me know so
>>>> I can run a quick smoke test on the subsystem before we release.
>>>>>
>>>>> With regards to distro we should move the adapters and examples into
>>>>> separate downloads. Also, we should move the examples into a separate
>>>>> github project (keycloak/keycloak-examples). This will make it easier for
>>>>> those that wants to fork the examples separately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, we should consider a download based on the web-lite profile. For
>>>>> non-JavaEE apps, containers (Docker) and those that want to run a
>>>>> standalone KC server it would be nice to have a small as possible distro.
>>>> Depending on how the feature pack turns out, we might be able to offer
>>>> many flavors of the appliance distro without any additional effort.  We
>>>> could have:
>>>> EAP6 + Keycloak
>>>> AS7 + Keycloak
>>>> WF8 (web) + Keycloak
>>>> WF8 (full) + Keycloak
>>>> WF 9 beta (web) + Keycloak
>>>> WF 9 beta (full) + Keycloak
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO, we just need:
>>> * war-dist
>>> * appliance-dist
>>>
>>> Appliance distribution would have the most stable platform available.
>>> Since we can't distribute EAP, then it would be the most stable and
>>> maintained version of Wildfly that allows us to cluster and deploy Keycloak.
>>
>> Our download at the moment is 160MB and is really aimed at the first-time JavaEE user (bundled with examples and documentation). Why should we require someone that just wants to upgrade their server to download all of that? There'll also be loads of people that don't need the JavaEE parts, a NodeJS developer or deploying to cloud for example. I think we could easily have a standalone Keycloak server download that'd be around 30MB.
>>
>> IMO we should have:
>>
>> * Minimal server (based on WildFly web/core)
>> * Full server (based on WildFly full)
>> * Feature pack - to easily install onto other version of WF, EAP, etc.
>>
>> Neither of those downloads should include docs or examples. As we don't really support installing onto Tomcat or Jetty, why have a war-dist?
>>
>
> I disagree.  At least one download should have everything:  docs,
> examples, and a distro that can run the examples.  Reducing even simple
> steps for 1st time users is crucial to adoption.  How fast a first time
> user can get "hello world" running is crucial.  BTW, That's a major
> reason why your suggestion earlier of having examples on Github is not a
> great idea.
>
> Why have a war-dist?  So we can deploy to EAP 6.  AFAIK, EAP 6 doesn't
> support feature packs.  war-dist could change to subsystem-dist I guess
> since, as you said, we don't really support installing into tomcat or jetty.
>

One more thing.  A server/appliance distro should be clusterable and be 
able to run in domain mode.  Also, IMO, if the download size between 
minimal and full server is not significant then we don't have a minimal 
server distro.  i.e. 160M vs. 30M is one thing...but if its 160M vs. 
120M I don't see much difference there.   Reduction in the number of 
options a user has to make a decision on is always a good thing.  Most 
users will want us to make the decisions for them.


-- 
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com