I agree that would be better, but there's not a one to one mapping between
the admin client interfaces and the admin services, so not sure if this
would be possible at the moment without radically changing the client api.
We're also planning on re-doing the admin endpoints completely at some
point and introduce a much improved v2.
On 14 December 2016 at 01:27, Scott Rossillo <srossillo(a)smartling.com>
wrote:
I’ve been doing some work around the admin client and endpoints. I
noticed
that org.keycloak.services.resources.admin.UsersResource does not
implement the org.keycloak.admin.client.resource.UsersResource interface.
Is there an intentional reason for this?
It would be easier to keep the server implementation honest to the APIs if
the interfaces were implemented plus simplify implementation discovery.
Seems there are redundant POJOs as a result of this too.
What do you guys think about modifying the admin service to implement the
client interfaces?
Thanks,
Scott
Scott Rossillo
Smartling | Senior Software Engineer
srossillo(a)smartling.com
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev