Re: [aerogear-dev] Keycloak user/roles management

I think might not be hard to handle most of these scenarios on Keycloak, but before move forward I would like to undestand why the admin is removed here: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/ecbe017e65ea... Any specific reason for it? I'm asking because I'm about to change it.

Are we planning to build our own admin interface?

On 2014-05-21, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > Just a thought... regarding those two roles 'PushAdmin' and 'Super-User', > IMO the Super-user should be able to see all apps (and their variants, > including registered devices). > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > Thank you Matthias, I will look at it and return back with more > > questions if necessary. > > > > On 2014-05-21, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > yes - the handling is done by Keycloak itself; Last time we looked at > > user > > > management, we had the following in terms of roles: > > > > > > https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/6547605 > > > > > > Not sure the names of these roles are great.... let's see > > > > > > Basically I think the role definition in the gist still addresses most of > > > what we want to archive: > > > * super-user: in charge of managing the UPS realm (including users); can > > > see _ALL_ push applications (that's the admin in Sebi's gist) > > > * PushAdmin: Someone that can manage applications and variants, but is > > not > > > able to add new users; he also sees only his applications/variants etc > > > (that's the developer in sebis gist) > > > > > > The gist also contains a 'Viewer' role - At this point I am not sure we > > do > > > really need this. My impression is that if we have PushAdmins for our > > 1.0.0 > > > community release that will be enough. > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Bruno Oliveira < bruno(a)abstractj.org > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Good morning peeps, > > > > > > > > Before I jump in https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-639. I would > > > > like to understand what do you guys want say with this issue. > > > > > > > > Currently Keycloak already has its own user/roles managements. What do > > > > you guys are looking for? Any specific requirements? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > abstractj > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > -- > > > > abstractj > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- abstractj _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev