<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <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">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a>&gt;</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>
                  &gt; Bill,<br>
                  &gt;<br>
                  &gt; Are you planing to have an option to allow import
                  of users with the<br>
                  &gt; new user federation SPI? I'm not convinced we
                  should completely remove<br>
                  &gt; this option.<br>
                  &gt;<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="">&gt; Some use-cases I could imagine:<br>
                  &gt;<br>
                  &gt; * 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>
    Marek<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:1d491ec6-14d8-f1f8-3dbe-ad6b5c482f66@redhat.com"
      type="cite"> Bill<br>
      <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>