[keycloak-dev] add-user.sh overwrites wildfly one
Marek Posolda
mposolda at redhat.com
Mon Apr 25 04:45:58 EDT 2016
On 25/04/16 09:35, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> Seems like the majority (that being everyone besides me) would like to
> have the script renamed. So let's go for it, but first I have two
> questions:
Btv. I didn't suggest to rename, but keep as is. But always when people
run "add-user.sh" without "--container", there will be be a big warning
similar to:
"You are adding Keycloak admin, but not Wildfly admin!!! If you want to
add Wildfly admin use the option --container"
This should solve both your (a) and (b) and remove most of confusions
IMO. And in the future version, when keycloak and wildfly admin will be
same thing, we can still use same "add-user.sh" script without need to
rename, remove or add any new script. We will just remove the warning
and possibly support for "--container" option.
Marek
>
> a) What should it be called (it can't be add-user-keycloak.sh as then
> it wouldn't make sense in product)? add-user-sso.sh is an idea, but is
> it clear that's adding "Keycloak admin console" users
> b) Will we not get a bunch of people asking "I added a user with
> add-user, but still can't login to Keycloak admin console"? Do we have
> a solution for that?
>
> On 25 April 2016 at 03:41, Stan Silvert <ssilvert at redhat.com
> <mailto:ssilvert at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/24/2016 2:58 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
> > Completely different. standalone.sh and domain.sh are
> completely new
> > run.sh variants and run.sh disappeared.
> Nope. If there was no domain.sh we would have kept run.sh.
> standalone.sh does exactly the same thing run.sh used to do.
> Furthermore, run.sh didn't disappear. It just prints a helpful
> message.
>
> The situation here is exactly the same. If there was no "keycloak"
> add-user we would have kept the old one.
>
> Bill, I agree that the current situation is confusing. Stian, I agree
> that having both "add-user.sh" and "add-user-keycloak.sh" is also
> confusing.
>
> The WildFly solution isn't pretty, but at least it isn't confusing.
>
> I suppose you could make the whole thing prettier by slapping some
> extra
> UI into the unified version. Let it prompt the user for what he
> really
> wants to do, etc., etc.
> >
> > add-user.sh is the same script as the old. and you've already
> had two
> > Red Hat people scratching their heads wondering what happened to
> > add-user.sh.
> Were you including me? I complained about this several weeks ago, so
> perhaps you can make that three Red Hat people. I agree that it's a
> problem.
> >
> > On 4/23/2016 3:04 PM, Stan Silvert wrote:
> >> We had the same kind of problem in WildFly a few years ago.
> Everyone
> >> was used to starting the server with run.sh. But we needed to
> change
> >> that to differentiate between standalone.sh and domain.sh. So
> we made
> >> run.bat just print out a "This is deprecated. Here is what you
> need to
> >> do...." message.
> >>
> >> It's not a perfect solution, but we could do the same thing with
> >> add-user.sh and tell them to use either add-user-keycloak.sh or
> >> add-user-eap.sh. At least you wouldn't get any support questions.
> >>
> >> On 4/23/2016 9:06 AM, Ilya Rum wrote:
> >>> Hello!
> >>>
> >>> As a new member of keycloak QA team I recently had to set up some
> >>> clustering with domain mode.
> >>> I was really confused when add-user.sh did not add user to
> jboss but
> >>> rather created the keycloak-add-user.json.
> >>> The worst thing was that I couldn't find any docs on adding
> user to
> >>> underlying eap at all.
> >>> Had to read the add-user.sh itself to find out what was happening.
> >>> Even if it remains as it is, it really should be at least
> mentioned in
> >>> the docs :)
> >>>
> >>> Have a nice day!
> >>> Ilya Rum.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 08:48:15AM -0400, Bill Burke wrote:
> >>>> Do you care about usability at all? Not everything can fit
> into nice little
> >>>> boxes all the time. This is going to be extremely confusing
> for users. I
> >>>> ran into it myself as I thought the jboss add-user.sh script
> was overwritten
> >>>> by our distribution script by mistake. *OF COURSE* we should
> have a
> >>>> separate add-user.sh script. Even when, hopefully, JBoss can
> delegate to
> >>>> Keycloak in maybe 7.1. If we are going to leverage the JBoss
> platform, and
> >>>> this means the JBoss documentation too, every management
> function that
> >>>> exists in JBoss should be available in Keycloak and *WORK THE
> SAME WAY*. If
> >>>> we don't change this, we're going to get a ton of support
> questions that
> >>>> say: "Why doesn't add-user.sh work?"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/23/2016 1:29 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >>>>> In the future we need to secure the underlying WildFly with
> rhsso. In
> >>>>> which case our add-user will add users for both Keycloak and
> WildFly/EAP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO there's going to be confusion until the above is solved
> no matter what
> >>>>> we do. We'll need to document this whichever way we do it.
> Options are
> >>>>> stay with what we have or rename our script. My vote goes to
> keep as is
> >>>>> and document it. Then hopefully by 7.1 we can secure the
> WildFly bits so
> >>>>> the problem goes away. With the other option (rename ours)
> there will be a
> >>>>> problem once WildFly bits are secured by Keycloak as now the
> wf add-user
> >>>>> script should no longer be used and completely removed at
> which point we
> >>>>> should then rename it back. So in the long run sticking with
> how it is
> >>>>> today is ideal. It's also way to late making changes now.
> BTW this has
> >>>>> been around for months.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 22 Apr 2016 22:14, "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com
> <mailto:bburke at redhat.com>
> >>>>> <mailto:bburke at redhat.com <mailto:bburke at redhat.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 4/22/2016 3:57 PM, Marek Posolda wrote:
> >>>>> > That's the question...
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > For server distribution, we also have our stuff (
> keycloak
> >>>>> subsystem,
> >>>>> > datasource, infinispan etc) directly declared in
> >>>>> "standalone.xml". On
> >>>>> > the other hand, for overlay distribution, we don't
> want to directly
> >>>>> > update default "standalone.xml", so we are adding
> our own
> >>>>> > "standalone-keycloak.xml". Isn't it quite similar thing?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Product will not have the overlay distribution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > We can do the same for overlay and server
> distribution, so never
> >>>>> edit
> >>>>> > default wildfly files ( standalone.xml ,
> add-user.sh), but
> >>>>> always use
> >>>>> > our own versions with "-keycloak" suffix. Advantage
> is more
> >>>>> > consistent. However people will need to always start
> keycloak server
> >>>>> > with "./standalone.sh -c standalone-keycloak.xml"
> then. Doesn't it
> >>>>> > sucks from the usability perspective?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The overlay exists because we can't distribute EAP
> within community.
> >>>>> Keycloak should be run as a separate server, so, IMO,
> -keycloak.xml
> >>>>> files should go away and overwrite standalone.xml,
> >>>>> standalone-ha.xml and
> >>>>> domain.xml
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > I honestly don't know what's the best way regarding
> usability. AFAIK
> >>>>> > this was decided on mailing lists couple of months
> ago, but don't
> >>>>> > remember the exact threads...:/
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm pretty adamant about this. There will be a huge
> amount of
> >>>>> confusion
> >>>>> if we don't make this separation. Wildfly/JBoss and
> Keycloak are hard
> >>>>> enough to configure as it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Bill Burke
> >>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> >>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >>>>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>>
> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Bill Burke
> >>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> >>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >>>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160425/3c849092/attachment-0001.html
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list