On 1/13/2016 2:02 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
On 13 January 2016 at 20:00, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com
<mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> wrote:
Because it isn't something that would ever be removed like JPA or
mongo?
Actually, in theory it could. That's why I thought it was a sensible
separation. It all relies on Freemarker so if we decided to use
something else or to support another templating mechanism as well. Or
even to stop using templates and use AngularJS+rest.
No way it is removed for a LOONNGGG time. Too many users are dependent
on it now. Our own codebase depends on it too.
Themes would just be .js and .html and .css right?
Yep. I think it's worth keeping them separate.
On 1/13/2016 1:19 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> It seems like a logically grouping. Is there a reason you don't
> want it separate?
>
> On 13 January 2016 at 19:17, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Why do you want freemarker separate?
>
>
> On 1/13/2016 1:14 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> keycloak-common
>> keycloak-common-saml
>> keycloak-common-oidc
>>
>> keycloak-server-spi
>> keycloak-server-jpa
>> keycloak-server-mongo
>> keycloak-server-infinispan
>> keycloak-server-freemarker
>> keycloak-server-ldap
>> keycloak-server-themes
>> keycloak-server-wildfly
>> keycloak-server-services
>>
>> All providers that are don't fall into one of the above
>> categories (for example timer, protocol mappers, etc..) can
>> just go into keycloak-server-services.
>>
>>
>> On 12 January 2016 at 19:44, Stian Thorgersen
>> <sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 January 2016 at 19:32, Stian Thorgersen
>> <sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 January 2016 at 16:26, Bill Burke
>> <bburke(a)redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/2016 2:45 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 January 2016 at 03:22, Bill Burke
>>> <bburke(a)redhat.com
<mailto:bburke@redhat.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can't find the original email on this,
>>> but we need to do this for
>>> 1.9. I can start doing it one module at a
>>> time:
>>>
>>>
>>> Common:
>>> keycloak-common
>>> keycloak-common-saml
>>> keycloak-common-oidc
>>>
>>> Libraries server:
>>>
>>> keycloak-server-spi - all SPI interfaces
>>> and common code
>>> keycloak-server-saml - all saml server
>>> code, broker and protocol plugins
>>> keycloak-server-oidc - all oidc code,
>>> broker and protocol plugins
>>> keycloak-server-impl - everything
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not 100% sure we should put all
>>> implementations of SPIs into
>>> keycloak-server-impl. We at least need to keep
>>> Mongo separate as it's not part of the product.
>>>
>>> If we put all SPI implementations, including
>>> services, into the same module we'd end up with
>>> one huge module. There's also a risk that we'd
>>> end up with strong relationships between them,
>>> rather than having them properly linked via SPI
>>> interfaces.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit 50/50 on it though.
>> You do remember how many modules we currently
>> have don't you? Minimally, we should have a big
>> SPI module right?
>>
>>
>> I'm absolutely on board with:
>>
>> Common:
>> keycloak-common
>> keycloak-common-saml
>> keycloak-common-oidc
>>
>> Libraries server:
>> keycloak-server-spi
>>
>> So we can agree on that, I'm just not 100% sure
>> about a single module for all SPI implementations
>> and services.
>>
>>
>> We can go with a single module if you want. Only thing
>> that needs to be separate is Mongo at least for now as
>> it's not going to be supported and we need to be able to
>> remove it easily.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>
http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>
http://bill.burkecentral.com
>
>
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com