I'm happy with:
With regards to the protocol specific parts are you thinking those would be client
specific things for each protocol? For example JWT utils?
Further I think we should put core provider implementations into keycloak-services or
maybe keycloak-default-providers or something. Then only have separate modules for those
providers that need to be pluggable (jpa, mongo, etc..).
Not sure if the way I counted it is accurate, but we seem to have 200 maven modules!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com>
To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2015 3:03:27 PM
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] public/private api module structure
On 8/13/2015 1:47 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>> For users if they included a single module/jar with the apis for all SPIs
>>> they would then have to figure out what belongs to what. That's where I
>>> think it's cleaner to split it up.
>> This is an honest question. Why do they have to figure out what belongs
>> to what? And why do they care? They will be looking at documentation
>> and javadocs.
> There's two types of devs those that reads docs and javadocs and does that
> don't. Personally I'm a bit of both I refer to javadocs sometimes, but
> quite frequently I look through the source code and that's much simpler if
> it's modularized. However, I've thought about it a bit and I think we can
> achieve the same modularity with packages and by making sure
> "keycloak-server-api" mainly contains interfaces.
Interfaces and simple helper or abstract classes.
JBoss, a division of Red Hat