Well, if a redo is in the plans, I think putting a priority on implementing the client
interfaces would be 100% beneficial, reduce redundant code, and ensure endpoints are
compliant with the SDKs.
:)
Scott Rossillo
Smartling | Senior Software Engineer
srossillo(a)smartling.com
On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:32 PM, Stian Thorgersen
<sthorger(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I agree that would be better, but there's not a one to one mapping between the admin
client interfaces and the admin services, so not sure if this would be possible at the
moment without radically changing the client api. We're also planning on re-doing the
admin endpoints completely at some point and introduce a much improved v2.
On 14 December 2016 at 01:27, Scott Rossillo <srossillo(a)smartling.com
<mailto:srossillo@smartling.com>> wrote:
I’ve been doing some work around the admin client and endpoints. I noticed that
org.keycloak.services.resources.admin.UsersResource does not implement the
org.keycloak.admin.client.resource.UsersResource interface. Is there an intentional reason
for this?
It would be easier to keep the server implementation honest to the APIs if the interfaces
were implemented plus simplify implementation discovery. Seems there are redundant POJOs
as a result of this too.
What do you guys think about modifying the admin service to implement the client
interfaces?
Thanks,
Scott
Scott Rossillo
Smartling | Senior Software Engineer
srossillo(a)smartling.com <mailto:srossillo@smartling.com>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev>