[keycloak-dev] Invalid redirect_uri with passport

Bruno Oliveira bruno at abstractj.org
Fri Dec 5 03:28:31 EST 2014


No problem at all. Would you guys like to have the codebase under keycloak
organization? Just let me know.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Stian Thorgersen <stian at redhat.com> wrote:

> There's benefits to both approaches, but the simple fact is we currently
> version everything the same. Keycloak, adapters, cartridges, etc. I don't
> want to have a special case for the Passport adapter, so let's use the same
> version at least for now.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bruno Oliveira" <bruno at abstractj.org>
> > To: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Thursday, 4 December, 2014 5:01:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Invalid redirect_uri with passport
> >
> > On 2014-12-04, Bill Burke wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/4/2014 10:04 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>On Dec 4, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>On 12/4/2014 9:19 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> > > >>>On 2014-12-04, Bill Burke wrote:
> > > >>>>I'd like to distribute this in the next release and document it.
> Will
> > > >>>>the appropriate Node.js distribution methods be available for this?
> > > >>>>(Bower?)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Hi Bill, it's distributed under npm here
> > > >>>https://www.npmjs.org/package/passport-keycloak
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Change the version to 1.1.Beta2 :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I'm not so sure about the versioning, it's a big bump for the first
> > > >>>release. But I'm fine if you guys think the opposite.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>Doesn't matter.  Have it same version as Keycloak.  It will be
> easier to
> > > >>keep track of compatibilities for both us and users.  BTW, our Tomcat
> > > >>and Jetty are new, we didn't version it 0.0.alph1. :)
> > > >
> > > >i sort of disagree here.  This is just an adapter really, and should
> be on
> > > >it’s own versioning independent of what the main key cloak
> distribution
> > > >is.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In my experience different versions just confuses people.  It starts to
> > > become important when you have multiple major versions out in the wild
> and
> > > there are incompatibilities between them.
> >
> > Bill, my major concern about having the same versioning. Is people
> > mistakenly assuming that this adapter is full compatible with all the
> > features on
> > Keycloak, which is not true at the moment. More work is required, like
> > you asked for role mappings, bearer tokens and etc.
> >
> > Does it make sense to you?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bill Burke
> > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > > http://bill.burkecentral.com
> >
> > --
> >
> > abstractj
> > PGP: 0x84DC9914
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>



-- 

-- 
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20141205/69642617/attachment.html 


More information about the keycloak-dev mailing list