<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/04/16 11:06, Stian Thorgersen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgngAdbwU6ub264YHe6t2w5hidtS5h=vxH6b4OdQ8Mhmaa+0Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 29 April 2016 at 10:58, Marek
Posolda <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mposolda@redhat.com" target="_blank">mposolda@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div>On 29/04/16 10:22, Stian Thorgersen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">We have 3 types of providers:</p>
<p dir="ltr">* Server configured - no config or
config from keycloak-server<br>
* Realm configured - config from realm model<br>
* Instance configured - multiple instances per
realm</p>
<p dir="ltr">Removing master realm as we plan to do
means that realm configured provider factories can
get realm from KeycloakContext as there's only one
realm per-session.</p>
</blockquote>
</span> In theory yes. In practice there might be still
corner cases when you need to deal with multiple realms
inside same KeycloakSession (like export/import for
example). But hope we can handle most of the cases by
assume that KeycloakContext has correct realm set.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Corner cases like that is easy - we'd use create a
KeycloakSession per-realm, making sure KeycloakContext is
initialized properly.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">For instance configured I propose we
add getProvider(Class c, String id, String
instanceId) to provider factory. The it's up to
the provider factory itself to extract the config
from the realm model or another source. It also
means that the session can easily keep track of
these and only create one id+instanceId per
session.</p>
</blockquote>
</span> ah, ok. I somehow missed the proposal. <br>
<br>
It should work fine, I think it's quite similar to what
I proposed. Despite I proposed to send whole state to
provider factory (aka. UserFederationProviderModel)
instead of just instanceId and then assume that state
must properly implement "hashCode" to ensure that
session can keep track of these and return provider of
already used state.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yup, very similar, but I think the devil is in the
details. In my proposal the factory itself knows how to
extract the state, so it's then up to the factory to
decide how state should be stored. A custom provider may
need to store config in a separate custom entity, which
KeycloakSessionFactory wouldn't know how to retrieve.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Well, for custom SPI providers, you can simply use "String" as the
state type. Defacto I see the only difference between proposals,
that yours is simpler as it's just always using "String" as state
type instead of having type dynamic. <br>
<br>
<br>
I am not saying it's big issue though. For example
UserFederationManager now already have all
UserFederationProviderModel instances configured for realm, so with
yours, you will need to call:<br>
<br>
session.getProvider(UserFederationProvider.class, "ldap",
providerModel.getId());<br>
<br>
and session will need to load UserFederationProviderModel again from
realm as it knows just id. But since it's supposed to be cached,
there is no additional performance penalty in loading
UserFederationProviderModel again.<br>
<br>
So I agree we can try to go simpler way and possibly enhance just if
we find another SPI limitations.<br>
<br>
Marek<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgngAdbwU6ub264YHe6t2w5hidtS5h=vxH6b4OdQ8Mhmaa+0Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Marek</font></span><span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 29 Apr 2016 09:43,
"Marek Posolda" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mposolda@redhat.com"
target="_blank">mposolda@redhat.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div> Yes, AFAIK we have open JIRA for this
for a long time ago. <br>
<br>
It's the same issue for IdentityProvider
(and maybe some others SPI too) that they
bypass "official" way for create provider
via session.getProvider(providerClazz) and
hence they are not registered in
KeycloakSession and "close" method is not
called for them.<br>
<br>
The issue is that our SPI is a bit limited
IMO and doesn't support "stateful"
providers. The providers are created through
"ProviderFactory.create(KeycloakSession)".
So the only available state of provider ATM
is just ProviderFactory + KeycloakSession,
which is sometimes not sufficient. <br>
<br>
<br>
I can see 2 possibilities to address:<br>
<br>
1) Always make the provider implementation
"stateless" and ensure all the state is
passed as argument to provider methods. This
is what we already do for some providers
(for example all methods of UserProvider has
RealmModel as parameter). So if we rewrite
UserFederation SPI that
UserFederationProviderModel will be passed
as argument to all methods of
UserFederationProvider, then it can use
"official" way too. <br>
<br>
<br>
2) Improve the SPI, so it can properly
support "stateful" providers. This is more
flexible then (1) and I would go this way
long term.<br>
<br>
I am thinking about something like this:<br>
<br>
public interface StatefulProvider<S>
extends Provider {<br>
}<br>
<br>
<br>
public class StatefulProviderFactory<T
extends StatefulProvider, S> {<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#20999d">T </span>create(KeycloakSession
session, S state);<br>
<br>
....... <br>
}<br>
<br>
<br>
and on KEycloakSession new method like this:<br>
<br>
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#000000;font-family:'DejaVu Sans Mono';font-size:9.0pt"><<span style="color:#20999d">S</span>, <span style="color:#20999d">T </span><span style="color:#000080;font-weight:bold">extends </span>StatefulProvider<<span style="color:#20999d">S</span>>> <span style="color:#20999d">T </span>getProvider(Class<<span style="color:#20999d">T</span>> providerClazz, String id, <span style="color:#20999d">S </span>state);</pre>
<br>
The "state" will need to properly implement
equals and hashCode, so the SPI can deal
with it and not create another instance of
StatefulProvider if it was called for this
KeycloakSession with same state before.<br>
<br>
Marek
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
On 29/04/16 08:00, Stian Thorgersen wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Looking at the code for
user federation it looks like user
federation provider instances with the
same configuration can be created
multiple times for a single session.
Also they are never closed to resources
aren't released.</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
<pre>_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>