On Oct 31, 2014 8:29 AM, "Bill Burke" <bburke@redhat.com> wrote:

I'll add a flag to the adapter then.  The reason is, again, pure servlet
apps, like BRMS that display the principal name in their UI.

On 10/31/2014 3:11 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> -1
>
> We should stick with ID as we can guarantee that it's unique (in the future).
>
> If app starts using the username in their dbs you can end up with situations where the wrong user gets access to things he shouldn't. For example:
>
> * If user with username userA is removed from Keycloak, then later a new user is registered as userA
> * If we support changing username in the future (this is on the road-map, and IMO it makes sense to add this with a toggle in the realm to enable/disable)
>
> What difference does it make if it's ugly? If apps wants to display details about the user they should get the profile. Sadly there's no direct support for this in Principal.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke@redhat.com>
>> To: keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 30 October, 2014 11:29:59 PM
>> Subject: [keycloak-dev] Create Principal instance with username instead?
>>
>> Right no UserPrincipal is created in the adapters using the user id.
>> For strictly pure Servlet apps, an ID is pretty ugly.  I don't want to
>> force them to use keycloak code.
>>
>> So...is it ok to populate the principal name with
>> accessToken.getPreferredUsername()?
>>
>> --
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>

--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev