<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Darimont <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.darimont@googlemail.com" target="_blank">thomas.darimont@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>yes I understand that - and I agree that falling back to the default client in case of a missing client is not a good idea.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I understand this as well, but it has not been uncommon to encounter a situation where the user needs to know where to go next, because Keycloak doesn't have a link available. </div><div><br></div><div>Maybe and hopefully it's just related to the development phase when applications are redeployed often.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>@Thomas<br></div><div>Initially I also thought about having a default redirect url per realm but then I thought that simply refering to a client_id and let keycloak redirect the user</div><div>appropriatly would be more flexible, especially because you can then also leverage all the client metadata that is available for a client (name, description etc.).</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Defining an existing client as a default is indeed a better idea. I probably misunderstood you first.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Thomas</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div></div></div>
</div></div>