On 05/04/16 10:19, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
At least personally I think the admin client needs some TLC. For example creating a user requires:

        UserRepresentation user = new UserRepresentation();
        user.setUsername("user");

        Response response = keycloak.realm("realm").users().create(user);

        // Retrieve created user id
        String path = response.getLocation().getPath();
        String id = path.substring(path.lastIndexOf('/') + 1);
        
        // Remember to close the response
        response.close();

        // Set password
        CredentialRepresentation credentials = new CredentialRepresentation();
        credentials.setType(CredentialRepresentation.PASSWORD);
        credentials.setValue("password");
        
        keycloak.realm("realm").users().get(id).resetPassword(credentials);
        
        // Add role
        RoleRepresentation role = keycloak.realm("realm").roles().get("role").toRepresentation();
        keycloak.realm("realm").users().get(id).roles().realmLevel().add(Collections.singletonList(role));
     
That's pretty rubbish right?

In my opinion a lot of the usability issues is caused by directly exposing interfaces/proxies from RestEasy Client and it would be much better if we introduced a wrapper around it.
Yeah, agree that usability is not very great.

However to me personally, the biggest issue is not usability but the fact, that admin-client needs to be manually maintained. AFAIK it was lots of spent time - especially for Stan and Marko - to have the admin-client synced with the latest server. And it seems that earlier or later, the issue will be back once we will add more endpoints. We can have "policy" that everyone, who is adding new server endpoint, would need to update client too (which is usually needed anyway for the test). But that still requires some time spend in manually updating code + there is some risk that earlier or later will admin-client still become outdated...

IMO If we can have admin-client autogenerated, it will be a huge win. I am not sure if it's realistic (and seems that it will be even harder to accomplish if we use wrapper instead of JAX-RS directly. ) but maybe worth to look into it at least?

So my questions are:

1) What do we do with regards to admin client? Do we just wrap what we have, keep it or create a brand new one from scratch?
2) Is it an issue that we require a specific RestEasy version to use the admin client? This seems a heavy dependency to me, which could conflict with other JAX-RS libraries. Using JAX-RS 2 Client would be an improvement as it should in theory work with any JAX-RS 2 provider.
3) What do we do with current fixes for admin client? Do we merge to master and 1.9.x or just merge to master?

At least from my POV the answers are:
1) Create wrappers around interfaces/proxies from RestEasy client and not expose JAX-RS directly through the API as that should be an implementation detail
+1 for wrappers. And as I mentioned above, look if we can do something regarding autogeneration (or at least something else to enforce the admin-client won't become outdated again).
2) Use JAX-RS 2 client
+1

But it will be good if people have possibility to configure the details of underlying Apache HTTP Client (connection pooling, connection/socket timeouts, tls etc). If it's possible to achieve it and use JAX-RS 2 client at the same time, it will be cool. Otherwise if we need to choose just one of these, the "configurability" of Apache HTTP client is more important IMO.
3) Merge fixes to both master and 1.9.x (admin client is not supported in product for now, so it's less risky)
+1

Marek
 


_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev