<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/23/16 10:32 AM, Marek Posolda
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:57BC5E83.30805@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/08/16 15:04, Bill Burke wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f08b9c3c-6c39-037e-fa7b-c32cf5db9390@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/23/16 3:39 AM, Marek Posolda
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:57BBFDCB.4080705@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/08/16 15:52, Bill Burke
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1d491ec6-14d8-f1f8-3dbe-ad6b5c482f66@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/19/16 2:37 AM, Stian
Thorgersen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgngAcrFJurnNYFB3Vi1dWmkVrWWWjtVVTMgp9C+VFtgxFFMQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 18 August 2016 at 20:30,
Bill Burke <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com">bburke@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class=""><br>
On 8/18/16 4:59 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:<br>
> Bill,<br>
><br>
> Are you planing to have an option to allow
import of users with the<br>
> new user federation SPI? I'm not convinced
we should completely remove<br>
> this option.<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>The only callback that does not exist in
the new SPI is<br>
validateAndProxy(). With the current federation
SPI, the developer<br>
implements everything themselves for import.
There are no<br>
synchronization APIs/SPIs either.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sounds like we're removing built-in features
around synchronization just to make the user have
to do everything themselves.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think you misinterpreted me, The old User Federation SPI
forces the developer to write all the import code
themselves. The old User Federation SPI does not have any
synchronization callbacks, methods or interfaces other than
validateAndProxy(), the logic of which the user has to write
themselves too.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgngAcrFJurnNYFB3Vi1dWmkVrWWWjtVVTMgp9C+VFtgxFFMQ@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">
<span class="">> Some use-cases I could
imagine:<br>
><br>
> * Allow users to authenticate even if LDAP
server is down<br>
</span>Our current LDAP provider will not work if
LDAP is down, even with the<br>
import :)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, I know. However, the fact that we don't
currently support it doesn't mean we shouldn't in
the future.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If the user can only be authenticated via LDAP, an offline
mode is not possible. In other words, if LDAP does not
expose the password of a user (so it can be imported), then
offline mode is not possible. It would only be possible if
the user has logged in at least once, then the validated
password could be imported.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1d491ec6-14d8-f1f8-3dbe-ad6b5c482f66@redhat.com"
type="cite"> <br>
So, do you still think we should support import/offline mode
given all this?<br>
</blockquote>
From some recent discussions I saw, it seems that quite many
people are interested in the "import-and-forget" mode. So they
need to import user from their old legacy store (3rd party
storage or LDAP) but once user is fully in Keycloak DB, they
want to completely forget about the 3rd party storage and do
all operations around this user against Keycloak DB.<br>
<br>
The credentials/password validation seems to be the most
complicated part around this as you pointed, as the password
needs to be first successfully validated against 3rdparty
storage or LDAP . Then once password is successfully validated
and updated to Keycloak DB, user can be "forgotten" and
unlinked from the federationProvider. I hope the new SPI has a
way to deal with this usecase? Or at least have a hook, so the
people can easily unlink the user by themselves whenever they
want.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
As I said before, the current SPI does not have any support for
import. It also does not have any SPIs around synchronization
or any synchronization buttons in the admin console. It is up
to the developer to write the code to import the user. And our
current LDAP implmementation is not "import and forget", you
already mentioned password validation, but there is also
validateAndProxy which is called every time the user is accessed
and which hits LDAP every time. There's also no way to unlink
the user. <br>
</blockquote>
Not right now, but it seems that many people consider the
"import-and-forget" as important usecase? You just want to import
the users from 3rd party storage or LDAP, but you need to do in
multiple steps and "wait" until password is successfully validated
for the first time.<br>
<br>
As an example this blogpost from Scott Rossillo <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://tech.smartling.com/migrate-to-keycloak-with-zero-downtime-8dcab9e7cb2c#.1e8sy1o8n">https://tech.smartling.com/migrate-to-keycloak-with-zero-downtime-8dcab9e7cb2c#.1e8sy1o8n</a>,
which AFAIK seemed to have some positive feedback from more
community users.<br>
<br>
I don't know how deeply to go with directly supporting it at SPI
level. However IMO it will be good to have at least same level
like the current UserFederation SPI. So at least at some point
(ie. after successful password validation), the people can
manually unlink the 3rd party provider from the user and migrate
all the data to Keycloak DB and then use it just from Keycloak DB.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Ok, good feedback. You are convincing me. Are we absolutely sure
this is actually a best practice and not an anti-pattern? Seems
scary to be half in and half out. I guess it does make sense if you
need to keep something like LDAP up for legacy apps.<br>
<br>
<br>
Just thinking around this we should have an additional interface for
imports:<br>
<br>
interface UserStorageSynchornization {<br>
<br>
void validate(UserModel). <br>
void synchronize()<br>
void unlink()<br>
<br>
<br>
}<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
validate is called whenever a user is looked up. Possibly used to
find deleted users and to synchronize updates on both sides on
demand. I want to add cache policies per provider, so maybe
validate is called only when pulled from persistence storage and not
cache.<br>
<br>
I don't think we need different synchronize methods. We should
instead store last sync timestamp and last updated timestamp for
each user and add queries to local storage to find users for a
specific provider that were synced and/or updated after a certain
time. Then the synchronize implementation can make the assessment
on what to synchronize or not. I'd also like to be able to fire off
synchronization in the background and to obtain a status on it from
the admin console. If it fails, how many users synchronized, and
error message, etc.<br>
<br>
unlink() would just be a callback whenever the admin console fires
of an unlink all users event.<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
</body>
</html>