From my point of view Goal 2 may be actually not needed depending on how

keycloakService = core.getService(KeyCloakService.class);

keycloakService = core.getService(KeyCloakService.class);

Sounds good to me. If it works out that 2 is covered by 1, great. @Passos @Summers anything you want to add? Would be great to get feedback from anyone using the sdk already too. On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:56 Wojciech Trocki, <wtrocki(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Added small comments on tickets. From my point of view everything looks > great. > From my point of view Goal 2 may be actually not needed depending on how > Goal 1 will be resolved. > I we think about it that is just one single ticket that is required to > improve overall user experience and API. > > > keycloakService = core.getService(KeyCloakService.class); > > I remember that service team required to pass additional parameters and > going this way will impose some limitations. > What we looking for is probably something like this: > > Auth keycloak = AeroGearAuth.create(options) > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:51 PM, David Martin <davmarti(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> After a massive 100+ comments, I've decided to merge the Android Core >> SDK Proposal >> https://github.com/aerogear/proposals/pull/9 >> >> * Android Core SDK is available from Maven: >> * Repo: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-android-sdk >> * Example Android App that uses the core SDK: >> https://github.com/secondsun/WipDemo/blob/master/app/src/ >> main/java/org/feedhenry/mcp/prdemo/CoreActivity.java >> * What you need to add to your gradle file: https://github.com/ >> secondsun/WipDemo/blob/master/app/build.gradle#L29 >> >> >> The amount of comments, calls and back&forth on irc has reached a >> reasonable level of agreement, with some remaining points of contention. >> The contention is mainly around the level of complexity that a developer >> has to undertake to use the SDK. >> After listening to the 3 main voices on this (Summers, Wojciech, >> Passos), I can see both points of view. >> >> (WARNING: A lot of paraphrasing below :) ) >> >> From Passos & Wojciech's point of view, ease of use of the SDK is what's >> most important. There should be practically no setup/init required other >> than having a mobile-config.json file in the right place, and call a static >> method to get an instance of a service (similar to Firebase). >> >> From Summers point of view, ease of use is also important, but something >> we can improve on iteratively. For example, the default use of a Service >> will be fine & possible to automate the setup for for 95% of cases. >> However, the other 5% is what we need to take into account from the >> beginning. >> >> >> So, based on this, I would like if the following 2 things were follow up >> goals for the Core SDK. >> I believe these changes will take whats currently there (and working), >> and move it towards something that is easier to use for developers. >> >> >> Goal 1: >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGDROID-712 >> Remove the need for static block initialisation/registration of service >> classes & their dependencies. i.e. this: >> >> static { >> ServiceModuleRegistry.registerServiceModule("keycloak", >> KeyCloakService.class, "http"); >> } >> >> From chatting with Summers, this should be possible now that this PR is >> merged https://github.com/aerogear/proposals/pull/16 and the config >> file format is nailed down. >> >> >> Goal 2: >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGDROID-713 >> Allow a simpler way of getting an instance of a Service class other than >> below. >> >> keycloakService = core.getService("keycloak", KeyCloakService.class); >> >> If there are multiple instances registered for a particular Class, it >> may still be necessary to use the above to get a 'named' instance (much >> like in dependency injection libs like spring that use annotations). >> However, in most cases, the below should be possible: >> >> keycloakService = core.getService(KeyCloakService.class); >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> -- >> David Martin >> Red Hat Mobile >> Twitter: @irldavem >> IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Aerogear" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an email to aerogear+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to aerogear(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >> msgid/aerogear/CADvBQ454ouqqV8Qr7nHssEYxV932Z >> -JcBqA36VW6-w_Puoe-ng%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aerogear/CADvBQ454ouqqV8Qr7nHssEYxV932Z... >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > > WOJCIECH TROCKI > > Red Hat Mobile <https://www.redhat.com/> > > IM: wtrocki > <https://red.ht/sig> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Aerogear" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to aerogear+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to aerogear(a)googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/aerogear/CADvBQ44NLBtp18o_aC5ou5gCxgqNViq5Ocv% 2BPfbegd9fAr8yRg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aerogear/CADvBQ44NLBtp18o_aC5ou5gCxgqNV... . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.