<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">+1 for have unified mapper for
properties and attributes. That's very easy to do, we can just
fallback to setAttribute/getAttribute if there is not property .
LDAP UserAttribute mapper is already unified and is doing like
that.<br>
<br>
Having the basic attributes in separate table might theoretically
have some performance impact. For example if email is stored as
attribute, then each searching by email needs to join 2 tables
instead of one. There is also DB constraint to enforce unique
email. So maybe at least email worth to keep as it is?<br>
<br>
Marek<br>
<br>
<br>
On 18/03/16 13:36, Stian Thorgersen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgngAf1oGOdc-5OwkkETGhoexMRa3tJgSfAXJvqLRp1EHyvpA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">+1 Makes sense to me. Especially the part of not
having two different mappers. It could still be useful to have a
get/set for common attributes, but they would just pass through
to attributes rather than separate fields.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 18 Mar 2016 1:17 p.m., "Vlastimil
Elias" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:velias@redhat.com">velias@redhat.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
as part of planned persistence storage SPI changes we talked
about on<br>
f2f we should probably consider removing of first name, last
name and<br>
email from UserModel property, but implement them as normal
user<br>
attributes with predefined names.<br>
<br>
This unification should simplify few things, for example
separate<br>
mappers for attributes and properties in Clients and Identity
Providers<br>
configuration, which may be hard to understand for beginners
(questions<br>
like "what the hell is difference between user properties and<br>
attributes?", "What user properties are available there?").<br>
<br>
This should also simplify implementation of User profile
validation SPI<br>
we talked about on f2f meeting.<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<br>
Vl.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Vlastimil Elias<br>
Principal Software Engineer<br>
Developer Portal Engineering Team<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
keycloak-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>