Re: [keycloak-dev] Running custom scripts in Keycloak container image

Yes, that's the idea how this can work. On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:19 PM Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Regarding the PR from Wouter. Instead of extending the image would be > possible to attach a volume with the scripts that need to be run on > startup? That would avoid the burden of creating a new image to only add a > few files into a directory. > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:37 PM Thomas Darimont < > thomas.darimont(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I'm one of the maintainers of the Keycloak helm chart: >> https://github.com/helm/charts/tree/master/stable/keycloak >> Since a lot of our users need to adjust the default configuration that is >> provided by the Keycloak docker images, we currently generate a >> keycloak.cli file that we apply during start. However, some of this >> configuration is again overridden by the defaults from the Keycloak >> docker >> image. >> >> See: >> >> https://github.com/helm/charts/blob/master/stable/keycloak/templates/conf... >> Configuration: >> >> https://github.com/helm/charts/blob/master/stable/keycloak/values.yaml#L121 >> >> Having dedicated support for config customizations at bootstrap in the >> stock Keycloak image would make things much easier here :) >> >> Cheers, >> Thomas >> >> Am Di., 12. Feb. 2019 um 14:42 Uhr schrieb Sebastian Laskawiec < >> slaskawi(a)redhat.com&gt;: >> >> > Hey guys, >> > >> > A while ago, one of our contributors, Wouter, sent an interesting pull >> > request: https://github.com/jboss-dockerfiles/keycloak/pull/176 >> > >> > The aim is to allow running custom scripts just before Keycloak boots >> up >> > and after the main configuration is done. This allows a user to inject >> his >> > own scripts (even *.cli) into /opt/jboss/tools/docker-entrypoint.d and >> > execute them automatically. >> > >> > This is somewhat related to what the Integrately Team is doing. They >> > basically use an InitContainer [1] to put additional extensions into >> our >> > image. Perhaps with the proposed approach, they could embed a custom >> script >> > that would download whatever extensions they need and put them into the >> > deployments directory? >> > >> > After thinking about this for a while, and besides really good >> advantages >> > of the Pull Request, I have some doubts. The biggest one is about our >> > guarantees with regard the Keycloak distribution (by saying >> distribution I >> > mean the binaries, their structure and Keycloak server location in the >> > image). If we accept this approach, it will be pretty hard for us to >> change >> > any major thing (even some trivial things like the location of the >> Keycloak >> > Server) without breaking the client scripts. >> > >> > Personally, I'm slightly leaning towards accepting this feature, but >> with a >> > description in README, that the user scripts may break at any time and >> in >> > any version (maybe even we should print this message in our logs). >> This way >> > we'll make the contract for such scripts very clear. >> > >> > What do you think? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Sebastian >> > >> > [1] >> https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/workloads/pods/init-containers/ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > keycloak-dev mailing list >> > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> keycloak-dev mailing list >> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >> >