Re: [keycloak-dev] User Federation provider instances

On 29/04/16 11:39, Marek Posolda wrote: On 29/04/16 11:06, Stian Thorgersen wrote: On 29 April 2016 at 10:58, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 29/04/16 10:22, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > > We have 3 types of providers: > > * Server configured - no config or config from keycloak-server > * Realm configured - config from realm model > * Instance configured - multiple instances per realm > > Removing master realm as we plan to do means that realm configured > provider factories can get realm from KeycloakContext as there's only one > realm per-session. > > In theory yes. In practice there might be still corner cases when you > need to deal with multiple realms inside same KeycloakSession (like > export/import for example). But hope we can handle most of the cases by > assume that KeycloakContext has correct realm set. > Corner cases like that is easy - we'd use create a KeycloakSession per-realm, making sure KeycloakContext is initialized properly. > > For instance configured I propose we add getProvider(Class c, String id, > String instanceId) to provider factory. The it's up to the provider factory > itself to extract the config from the realm model or another source. It > also means that the session can easily keep track of these and only create > one id+instanceId per session. > > ah, ok. I somehow missed the proposal. > > It should work fine, I think it's quite similar to what I proposed. > Despite I proposed to send whole state to provider factory (aka. > UserFederationProviderModel) instead of just instanceId and then assume > that state must properly implement "hashCode" to ensure that session can > keep track of these and return provider of already used state. > Yup, very similar, but I think the devil is in the details. In my proposal the factory itself knows how to extract the state, so it's then up to the factory to decide how state should be stored. A custom provider may need to store config in a separate custom entity, which KeycloakSessionFactory wouldn't know how to retrieve. Well, for custom SPI providers, you can simply use "String" as the state type. Defacto I see the only difference between proposals, that yours is simpler as it's just always using "String" as state type instead of having type dynamic. I am not saying it's big issue though. For example UserFederationManager now already have all UserFederationProviderModel instances configured for realm, so with yours, you will need to call: session.getProvider(UserFederationProvider.class, "ldap", providerModel.getId()); and session will need to load UserFederationProviderModel again from realm as it knows just id. But since it's supposed to be cached, there is no additional performance penalty in loading UserFederationProviderModel again. Well ;-) But on the other hand with simpler proposal... All UserFederationProviderFactory implementations provided by people will always need to load UserFederationProviderModel at the beginning: UserFederationProviderModel providerModel = session.getContext().getRealm().getFederationProvider(id); so there is some shared logic, which can be possibly handled by keycloak, but with simpler proposal, people will always need to call this in their UserFederationProviderFactory implementations.

Marek So I agree we can try to go simpler way and possibly enhance just if we find another SPI limitations. Marek > > > Marek > > On 29 Apr 2016 09:43, "Marek Posolda" <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Yes, AFAIK we have open JIRA for this for a long time ago. > > It's the same issue for IdentityProvider (and maybe some others SPI too) > that they bypass "official" way for create provider via > session.getProvider(providerClazz) and hence they are not registered in > KeycloakSession and "close" method is not called for them. > > The issue is that our SPI is a bit limited IMO and doesn't support > "stateful" providers. The providers are created through > "ProviderFactory.create(KeycloakSession)". So the only available state of > provider ATM is just ProviderFactory + KeycloakSession, which is sometimes > not sufficient. > > > I can see 2 possibilities to address: > > 1) Always make the provider implementation "stateless" and ensure all the > state is passed as argument to provider methods. This is what we already do > for some providers (for example all methods of UserProvider has RealmModel > as parameter). So if we rewrite UserFederation SPI that > UserFederationProviderModel will be passed as argument to all methods of > UserFederationProvider, then it can use "official" way too. > > > 2) Improve the SPI, so it can properly support "stateful" providers. This > is more flexible then (1) and I would go this way long term. > > I am thinking about something like this: > > public interface StatefulProvider<S> extends Provider { > } > > > public class StatefulProviderFactory<T extends StatefulProvider, S> { > > T create(KeycloakSession session, S state); > > ....... > } > > > and on KEycloakSession new method like this: > > <S, T extends StatefulProvider<S>> T getProvider(Class<T> providerClazz, String id, S state); > > > The "state" will need to properly implement equals and hashCode, so the > SPI can deal with it and not create another instance of StatefulProvider if > it was called for this KeycloakSession with same state before. > > Marek > > > > On 29/04/16 08:00, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > > Looking at the code for user federation it looks like user federation > provider instances with the same configuration can be created multiple > times for a single session. Also they are never closed to resources aren't > released. > > > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing listkeycloak-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ keycloak-dev mailing listkeycloak-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev