[keycloak-dev] 1.2.beta1 planning, need you to defer things

[Bill Burke]

On 3/12/2015 10:41 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 12 March, 2015 1:57:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] 1.2.beta1 planning, need you to defer things
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/12/2015 1:40 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>> I'd like to reopen KEYCLOAK-311 as IMO it's not solved. This is not
>>> referring to the claim mapping work you've done, it's something else.
>>>
>>
>> I opened two jiras.  One, a "claim validation" jira and another
>> broker->Usermodel mappers.  That should have covered what 311 is not doing.
>
> Not IMO. We really need to have something that defines how the internal user profile looks like, attribute validation, what attributes are required, etc.. Also, I really don't think we should require users to modify registration screens and admin console if all they want to do is for example to add a DOB field.
>

I disagree.  They will be editing these pages anyways to get the look 
and feel they want.  As i said over and over, you'll just be re-creating 
HTML within the data model.

>>
>>> Before we can do a release we need to make sure that database migration
>>> works (I know they don't atm as social providers and social links are
>>> lost). We also need to add transformation of JSON exports and
>>> representations so older versions can be imported into 1.2.0.Beta1.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure, but json imports from older versions should be backwards
>> compatible.  We're just doing migrations via json export/import right?
>
> No, we migrate the database directly. https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/misc/UpdatingDatabaseSchema.md
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to try and close existing bugs and implement features needed
>>>> for jboss.org guys over the next 2 weeks as well as test out master to
>>>> make sure things still work.
>>>
>>> With regards to jboss.org guys we shouldn't just add features because they
>>> request it. Take for example KEYCLOAK-1045, which was easily solved with
>>> we already have. Another one is KEYCLOAK-1051, which I think is a horrible
>>> idea.
>>>
>>
>> I don't want to just add features either, but some of their things are
>> valid...i.e. finding out if a user is logged and who they are without
>> doing all the token stuff.
>
> That's exactly one of the things that are not necessary, I've added a POC that uses keycloak.js, which they where happy with. See KEYCLOAK-1045 and http://stianst.github.io/jbossorg/index.html.
>

I'll take a look, but IIRC there was a different issue described (not 
1045), where a static home page shouldn't have to perform a full login 
and obtain a token just to know whether or not a user is logged in and 
who they are.

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