On 01/30/2015 10:58 AM, Thomas Segismont wrote:
Le 29/01/2015 17:08, Juraci Paixão Kröhling a écrit :
> On 01/29/2015 12:20 PM, Thomas Segismont wrote:
>>> My last point was "The PR makes it impossible to install a metrics
>>> server without KC". I meant that if one needs to configure and run
>>> a KC server in order to run a metrics server, then many potential
>>> users will not even give it a try. Potential users here are admins
>>> and production-focused developers who are working with combos like
>>> Grafana/Graphite/collectd
> Sorry for cutting the whole message to just this point, but before
> talking about the other points, I just want to clarify one thing: the
That's ok, as long as we do talk about the other points ;)
> admin does*not* need to deal with KC at all when trying things out.
> To run a metrics server, one just runs the start.sh and Keycloak just
> happens to be there as an implementation detail.
>
I know that start.sh does everything so that you get a metrics + KC
instance up and running. But that is not my point. My point is that many
admins will not even try the start.sh way if they realize they will
*have to* install an identity management server to use metrics in the
long run.
> Once the admin is ready to bring things to production, then Keycloak
> becomes a "concern", like any other backend would be (LDAP, SAML, ...).
>
When you install InfluxDB, carbon/whisper, opentsdb, you don't need to
install an identity management server, period.
They are also not multi-tenant solutions AFAIK. I don't see Metrics
competing with the solution mentioned, actually we looked into those to
use as underlying solution.
That said I am fine not providing security within Metrics and have it
part of Hawkular only if we can. I am much more hesitant providing
multiple stacks for multiple purposes as it makes testing much more
complicated.
Thomas
And LDAP, RDBMS, properties file are identity management backends, KC is
identity management itself.
> Since the demo, I've been looking at how other projects are
> integrating with Keycloak. The common scenario seems to be that their
> Maven profiles build a "distribution" that is Wildfly + Keycloak +
> WARs. So, the user just uncompresses this distribution package and has
> everything ready (this is similar to what we had in GateIn).
>
> Would this be a solution? I remember seeing somewhere that the goal is
> not to be dependent on Wildfly[1], but not sure if this design goal is
> still accurate.
>
> [
1]https://developer.jboss.org/wiki/HighLevelRequirements
That would be nice for users who *want* KC.
I can understand that we make KC a runtime requirement for the full
Hawkular monty, but I can't for metrics alone.
Regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev