Ok, if you think that having authz as first class citizen, then let's go
with it.
Still, if you want to revert clientTemplate, it's not yet late :) But
clientScope PR will need to be re-done to have both clientTemplate and
clientScope exists together. Question is, if we have some other similar
use-case (some common configuration to be shared between multiple
clients). But looks that no? Until now, we used it just for login theme,
which was quite a minor thing.
Marek
Dne 21.3.2018 v 15:29 Pedro Igor Silva napsal(a):
That is the idea.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Stian Thorgersen
<sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
Having a separate entry for authz might make a lot of sense. To
take that to the extreme you could then share everything between
clients right? Resources, policies, you name it.
On 21 March 2018 at 13:30, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com
<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> wrote:
If you also agree we should have a specific thing for authz
services, I'm OK with it.
In fact, the first version of authorization services had its
own menu item in the admin console. Before merging it we found
that include it as a tab in Client UI was better.
It should not require too much time to move the authorization
bits from Client UI to its own menu item in the admin console.
Main work will be docs and reviewing quickstarts. Does
"Authorization Services" sounds like a good name for this menu
item ?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Stian Thorgersen
<sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
I agree that this doesn't fit into client scope.
Perhaps we should have kept client templates and just
removed protocol mappers and scope from it. Not sure it
has a wider use-cases than authorization services though.
So perhaps the best would be to have some sort of
authorization services specific thing?
On 20 March 2018 at 21:16, Pedro Igor Silva
<psilva(a)redhat.com <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Marek Posolda
<mposolda(a)redhat.com <mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
> The difference between clientScopes and
clientTemplates is, that
> client-clientTemplate mapping is 1:1 . But
client-clientScope mapping will
> be 1:N.
>
> So in the PR I've removed some configuration things
from clientTemplate
> due the potential conflicts with 1:N mapping. For
example if client would
> inherit from 2 client scopes called "scope1" and
"scope2" . And "scope1"
> would have "Login theme" value "sunrise", but
"scope2" would have "Login
> theme" value "keycloak". Then client wouldn't
know
if it should use
> "sunrise" or "keycloak" theme.
> Those configuration switches just don't fit well to
the client scope
> model. So I removed login theme override from admin
console and some
> switches from clientTemplateModel, which were
defacto never supported by
> admin console and admin REST API and defacto never
worked (For example
> clientTemplate had switches like
standardFlowEnabled, implicitFlowEnabled
> etc.).
>
>
> ProtocolMappers and "Role scope mappings" fit well
into the
> clientScopeModel as they "add" things into the
client. Basically client use
> all protocolMappers defined on itself and on all
"parent" client scopes.
>
> For resources, authorization scopes and policies,
those also "add" things
> if I understand correctly? Basically client will use
all policies declared
> on himself and on all the parent client scopes. So
maybe authorization
> settings can be also added to client scopes?
>
Yeah, they add things to a client. So a client may
have its own resources
and policies + the ones inherited by a template/scope.
In this particular
case, we are basically sharing common settings across
multiple clients.
There is no need for a scope definition.
>
> I am just not sure if it fits into the "optional"
scopes as it would mean
> that some policies (and resources and authorization
scopes) will be used
> based on the value of "scope" parameter. But maybe
yes as accessToken and
> the authorization tokens will have "scope" parameter
on it, so the adapter
> will be able to check what policies were used to
issue the token and
> eventually throw the authorization error if used
"scope" is insufficient?
>
> The other possibility is to use something different
than client scopes.
> Either revert clientTemplates back (I can still
update PR to have both
> clientTemplates and clientScopes models available
and have both in admin
> console, but it will take few days of work and I
won't be able to do that
> in next few weeks). Or do some other thing for
authorization similar to
> what clientTemplate was before?
> ATM I think that having resources +
authorizationScopes + policies defined
> on clientScopes would work. But I may miss some
contexts. You know more if
> those authorization settings fit to the clientScope
model or not.
>
IMO, my use case does not fit into client scopes, at
all. What we need is a
place where we can define common settings for multiple
clients. In fact, I
think this is not only useful for this particular use
case but wherever you
want to allow users to define common settings for
clients within the same
realm.
Sorry for starting this thread so late. I would say
that client templates
would fit nice, but let's see what others think about
it. Not sure about
something specific for authorization settings. However
ff we decide for
something specific, we should probably move
authorization stuff to its own
menu item in admin console.
But I do see value in client templates as a way to
define common settings
for clients ...
>
> Marek
>
> Dne 20.3.2018 v 15:48 Pedro Igor Silva napsal(a):
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was investigating how we could share
authorization settings (resources,
>> scopes, and specially policies) across multiple
clients.
>>
>> Until now, I was considering using Client Templates
for that. But now that
>> Client Templates are gone in favor of Client
Scopes, I'm not sure where
>> this functionality fits in.
>>
>> Any suggestion on how we can support this ? IMO,
better would be avoid
>> another item on the menu for this. But I can't
envision other way to do it
>> ....
>>
>> Regards.
>> Pedro Igor
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev>
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev>