[keycloak-dev] Admin client interfaces not implemented in services

[Stian Thorgersen]

In the plans, but when we get time to do it is another question :(

On 14 December 2016 at 06:42, Scott Rossillo <srossillo at smartling.com>
wrote:

> Well, if a redo is in the plans, I think putting a priority on
> implementing the client interfaces would be 100% beneficial, reduce
> redundant code, and ensure endpoints are compliant with the SDKs.
>
> :)
>
> Scott Rossillo
> Smartling | Senior Software Engineer
> srossillo at smartling.com
>
> On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:32 PM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> I agree that would be better, but there's not a one to one mapping between
> the admin client interfaces and the admin services, so not sure if this
> would be possible at the moment without radically changing the client api.
> We're also planning on re-doing the admin endpoints completely at some
> point and introduce a much improved v2.
>
> On 14 December 2016 at 01:27, Scott Rossillo <srossillo at smartling.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I’ve been doing some work around the admin client and endpoints. I
>> noticed that org.keycloak.services.resources.admin.UsersResource does
>> not implement the org.keycloak.admin.client.resource.UsersResource
>> interface. Is there an intentional reason for this?
>>
>> It would be easier to keep the server implementation honest to the APIs
>> if the interfaces were implemented plus simplify implementation discovery.
>> Seems there are redundant POJOs as a result of this too.
>>
>> What do you guys think about modifying the admin service to implement the
>> client interfaces?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>> Scott Rossillo
>> Smartling | Senior Software Engineer
>> srossillo at smartling.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>
>
>