Re: [keycloak-dev] release? Stan?

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, 2 December, 2014 4:11:19 PM Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] release? Stan? On 12/2/2014 9:02 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 2:38:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] release? Stan? >> >> >> >> On 12/2/2014 7:55 AM, Stan Silvert wrote: >>> On 12/2/2014 4:52 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: >>>> Should we upgrade to WF 8.2 and also do some changes to the distro >>>> before >>>> release? >>> I don't see a reason not to go to WF 8.2. If we do that, let me know so >>> I can run a quick smoke test on the subsystem before we release. >>>> >>>> With regards to distro we should move the adapters and examples into >>>> separate downloads. Also, we should move the examples into a separate >>>> github project (keycloak/keycloak-examples). This will make it easier >>>> for >>>> those that wants to fork the examples separately. >>>> >>>> Also, we should consider a download based on the web-lite profile. For >>>> non-JavaEE apps, containers (Docker) and those that want to run a >>>> standalone KC server it would be nice to have a small as possible >>>> distro. >>> Depending on how the feature pack turns out, we might be able to offer >>> many flavors of the appliance distro without any additional effort. We >>> could have: >>> EAP6 + Keycloak >>> AS7 + Keycloak >>> WF8 (web) + Keycloak >>> WF8 (full) + Keycloak >>> WF 9 beta (web) + Keycloak >>> WF 9 beta (full) + Keycloak >>> etc. >>> >> >> IMO, we just need: >> * war-dist >> * appliance-dist >> >> Appliance distribution would have the most stable platform available. >> Since we can't distribute EAP, then it would be the most stable and >> maintained version of Wildfly that allows us to cluster and deploy >> Keycloak. > > Our download at the moment is 160MB and is really aimed at the first-time > JavaEE user (bundled with examples and documentation). Why should we > require someone that just wants to upgrade their server to download all of > that? There'll also be loads of people that don't need the JavaEE parts, a > NodeJS developer or deploying to cloud for example. I think we could > easily have a standalone Keycloak server download that'd be around 30MB. > > IMO we should have: > > * Minimal server (based on WildFly web/core) > * Full server (based on WildFly full) > * Feature pack - to easily install onto other version of WF, EAP, etc. > > Neither of those downloads should include docs or examples. As we don't > really support installing onto Tomcat or Jetty, why have a war-dist? > I disagree. At least one download should have everything: docs, examples, and a distro that can run the examples. Reducing even simple steps for 1st time users is crucial to adoption. How fast a first time user can get "hello world" running is crucial. BTW, That's a major reason why your suggestion earlier of having examples on Github is not a great idea.

Why have a war-dist? So we can deploy to EAP 6. AFAIK, EAP 6 doesn't support feature packs. war-dist could change to subsystem-dist I guess since, as you said, we don't really support installing into tomcat or jetty. -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com