Re: [aerogear-dev] Dealing with UPS Keycloak data post-datasource-split

From Stian on IRC

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > Sorry if I'm late for this discussion. > > On 2015-05-07, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > How about the following, not optimal, proposal: > > > > * get back to one data-source > > I'm not against about it, if it's for the benefit of the project. > > > * stick w/ Keycloak-1.1.0-final (in case updating to KC-1.2.0 makes > above > > item harder) > > I don't get why master must be reverted to 1.1.0 final. I think stable > release of KC must go in 1.0.x series of UPS, but on master, we must > stick with the latest greatest release of KC. Because is the only way to > work closely with KC team. > does their DB migration from their 1.0.5.Final to 1.2.0.CR1 work? If yes -> alright, let's go w/ KC 1.2..CR - if not, well it's not the end of the world to go back :-) Or, we just do NOT support any KC db migration, just ours - that's fine w/ me... > > > > > I understand that a separation of the two is needed on the longer run - > it > > would be good if that's something on our agenda post 1.1.0 e.g. for > 1.2.0 > > > > I think the above is a 'work around', which I could live with and buys > us > > time to truly think about a perfect separation. > > My 2 cents here and my humble opinion is the fact that we don't need > perfection, > only the correct. Today, split Keycloak and UPS would the most > correct thing to do. I'm not saying what we're doing here is dead wrong, > but > sooner or later the problem will hit us anyway. > > So maybe we should attack the problem now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me&gt; wrote: > > > > > >> Howdy y'all! > > >> > > >> I'm revisiting migration strategies for UPS master, and we have a > tough > > >> situation to deal with. > > >> > > >> Since we have moved keycloak to its own DataSource, there are KC > > >> leftovers at UPS database which need to be cleaned up. > > >> > > >> 1) Any suggestions on how to provide a migration path? > > >> Since the tables are intertwined with UPS tables, it's not a > matter of > > >> doing a db dump/restore... > > >> > > > > > > how are they intertwined? Is UPS stuff stored in KC tables, or vice > versa? > > > > > > > > >> 2) How to ensure we can safely get rid of the leftover tables on UPS > > >> DataSource? > > >> I can easily provide migrations which just nuke the tables from the > > >> face of the earth, > > >> > > > > > > that's good, but > > > > > > > > >> but how to do this without data loss? > > >> > > > > > > I don't know :-) I wonder if we just can not move the data to a new > > > datasource. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > PGP: 0x84DC9914 > _______________________________________________ > 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