Re: [keycloak-dev] Provider config

From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2014 8:49:02 PM Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Provider config That's doesn't necessarily my thoughts are any good though. I'll iterate you can reiterate I guess...

On 7/22/2014 12:19 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > Sounds like you've thought about this more than me, so I'll leave it with > you to sort out ;) > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2014 4:57:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Provider config >> >> >> >> On 7/22/2014 9:53 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2014 2:43:11 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Provider config >>>> >>>> Certain providers may have multiple instances/configs of themselves in >>>> the same realm. i.e. authentication providers (soon to be federation >>>> providers) which may be federating multiple different LDAP databases. >>>> Also, in the future, social may turn into a "federated broker SPI" where >>>> multiple generic federated broker providers can be configured per realm >>>> (i.e. SAML or other openid connections). >>> >>> Didn't consider that, we'll definitively need it >>> >> >> In my private fork, I pulled getProviderFactory methods from >> DefaultKeycloakSessionFactory up to KeycloakSessionFactory methods. >> Then defined my own specialized create methods. I don't use >> KeycloakSession.getProvider() anymore. >> >> >>>> >>>> I honestly don't want a generic "provider" admin console page where you >>>> generically configure the providers. I think it is a mistake. We're >>>> supposed to be making things easier and we should be making tailored >>>> console pages for what we ship out of the box. >>> >>> What about we allow configuring specific SPIs in the correct place, but >>> still use a form that is populated with labels/inputs from the providers >>> ConfigOptions? >>> >> >> LDAP config already doesn't fit into pure labels/inputs. IMO, rendering >> information belongs in HTML :) >> >> >> -- >> Bill Burke >> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >> http://bill.burkecentral.com >> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com