+1 on having "invalidateProvider" method.
For the other stuff, we already have the first 2 "getProvider" methods,
so the new stuff will be the methods with "String instanceId" parameter,
right?
We already discuss adding the "String instanceId" . Now when thinking
more, it looks that it is not so convenient.
When adding again UserFederation SPI as an example:
- UserFederationProviderFactory needs UserFederationProviderModel to
create instance of UserFederationProvider
- So factory needs to lookup model from cache/db. Hence the instanceId
would need to be compound of something like:
<REALM-UUID>::<USER-FEDERATION-PROVIDER-MODEL-ID>
That's because to lookup UserFederationProviderModel, you first need
RealmModel and then find the UserFederationProviderModel by it's ID
within the realm.
You may admit that RealmModel is available on KeycloakContext. However I
don't think that we can rely on it. KeycloakContext is available in REST
requests, but in some other cases (ie. ExportImport, periodic tasks
etc), it's not available. Caller usually have the RealmModel and he can
manually set it to KeycloakContext before calling session.getProvider,
however that doesn't look like good approach to me and should be rather
avoided. So in shortcut, we shouldn't rely on realm being available in
KeycloakContext IMO.
The logic for parse the "instanceId" and retrieve
UserFederationProviderModel from DB would be boilerplate code same to
all UserFederationProviderFactory impls.
With that in mind, it really seems to me that instead of "String
instanceId", it may work better to have some common configuration class
like "ProviderModel" . Then signature will look like:
* getProvider(Class<T> clazz, String providerId, ProviderModel model)
All the model subclasses (UserFederationProviderModel,
IdentityProviderModel, PasswordPolicyModel ...) will be subclasses of
ProviderModel
Marek
On 23/06/16 12:01, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
Currently it's expected that the factory is application scoped,
while
provider instances are request scoped. Factories can if they want
return the same instance for provider to make it application scoped.
This works as long as config is server-wide, but not if there are
config per-realm or even multiple different instances per-realm. This
applies to for example User Federation SPI (multiple per-realm),
Password Hashing SPI (one per-realm), etc.
Currently the User Federation SPI creates and manages instances
outside of the session factory and session, which results in multiple
instances created per-request, not all being closed properly, etc..
With that in mind I'd like to change the provider factories so that
there can be multiple provider factory instances. It's not completely
figured out, but I wanted to discuss it before I start a POC around it.
We'd have the following methods on KeycloakSession:
* getProvider(Class<T> clazz, Provider.class) - returns default provider
* getProvider(Class<T> clazz, Provider.class, String providerId) -
returns a specific provider, with the default config
* getProvider(Class<T> clazz, Provider.class, String providerId,
String instanceId) - returns a specific provider, with the specific config
We'd also add a method:
* invalidateProvider(Class<T> clazz, Provider.class, String
providerId, String instanceId) - this would be called when the config
for a specific provider instance is updated
Behind the covers the instances would be maintained. Each provider
factory would internally be responsible to retrieve config and cache
config for instances.
Does this sound like an idea worth pursuing? I'd like to try it out on
the PasswordPolicy SPI first.
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev