Re: [keycloak-dev] Splitting subsystem into two

From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2015 3:07:35 PM Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Splitting subsystem into two As long as shared code is in modules there should be no problem. On 1/6/2015 9:00 AM, Stan Silvert wrote: > I'm not totally sure what can be shared among subsystems. Maybe I'm > overthinking it. > > As long as the server is deployed as a WAR then there will be > restrictions on that by default. I don't know of any way to grab an > object from a WAR classloader and start making calls on it from a > subsystem. But maybe it can be done. I've never tried. > > On 1/6/2015 8:51 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: >> We should move all libs to modules, so would be same classloader space >> right? Module class-loaders are shared by default are they not? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2015 2:43:12 PM >>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Splitting subsystem into two >>> >>> If they are separate, why couldn't they be in the same classloader >>> space? They would share dependencies. >>> >>> On 1/6/2015 8:12 AM, Stan Silvert wrote: >>>> You may be right. I think the decision comes down to answering the >>>> question, "Is it ever advantageous to have the server and adapter in the >>>> same classloader space (module)?" The answer will hopefully become >>>> clear once I get a chance to talk to you in more detail about seamless >>>> adapter configuration. >>>> >>>> I've got the client part working where a template configuration is >>>> applied to any unsecured WAR. We just need to decide how the subsystem >>>> will register the application with the server. That's the part where it >>>> might be very helpful to have both in the same module so we can just >>>> make direct calls. Even so, we can't really do that today without >>>> significant refactoring. >>>> >>>> On 1/6/2015 7:48 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: >>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-872 made me think it might be >>>>> cleaner to split the subsystem in two, one for the server and another >>>>> for >>>>> the adapter. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> keycloak-dev mailing list >>>>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> keycloak-dev mailing list >>>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >>>> >>> -- >>> Bill Burke >>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >>> http://bill.burkecentral.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> keycloak-dev mailing list >>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> keycloak-dev mailing list >> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing list > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com _______________________________________________ keycloak-dev mailing list keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev