Re: [keycloak-dev] UMA 2.0

Depends on amount of work. If it's not to much extra work I'd prefer to have backwards compatibility for a while to allow users to migrate then remove in the last 3.x release. If that is a lot of work then we should just remove it. On 14 June 2017 at 14:50, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to review our UMA implementation (which is based on v1), and > get it aligned with the new version, v2. > > One of the main changes we need is that now UMA has a specific grant type > that should be used by clients to obtain RPTs. The Authorization API no > longer exists. > > Other changes are basically related with parts of the specs we are missing > that don't really bring issues for people already using UMA in Keycloak. > But new features and better UMA support. > > My question is if it is reasonable to have those changes in 3.2.0.CR1 and > how ? For instance, if we decide to have those changes in, specially the > new UMA grant type, should we keep/deprecate the legacy Authorization API > for backward compatibility or just remove it from AuthZ REST API ? > > Regards. > Pedro Igor > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing list > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >