For the principal name right? Yeah, I can make it configurable.
On 10/31/2014 9:24 AM, Red Samh wrote:
I was going to email regarding this.
Thanks for bringing this up. We see the guid or something where it
should be the username. Can this be configurable to use the email address?
On Oct 31, 2014 8:29 AM, "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com
I'll add a flag to the adapter then. The reason is, again, pure servlet
apps, like BRMS that display the principal name in their UI.
On 10/31/2014 3:11 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> We should stick with ID as we can guarantee that it's unique (in
> If app starts using the username in their dbs you can end up with
situations where the wrong user gets access to things he shouldn't.
> * If user with username userA is removed from Keycloak, then
later a new user is registered as userA
> * If we support changing username in the future (this is on the
road-map, and IMO it makes sense to add this with a toggle in the
realm to enable/disable)
> What difference does it make if it's ugly? If apps wants to
display details about the user they should get the profile. Sadly
there's no direct support for this in Principal.
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com
>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 30 October, 2014 11:29:59 PM
>> Subject: [keycloak-dev] Create Principal instance with username
>> Right no UserPrincipal is created in the adapters using the user id.
>> For strictly pure Servlet apps, an ID is pretty ugly. I don't
>> force them to use keycloak code.
>> So...is it ok to populate the principal name with
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:email@example.com>
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
keycloak-dev mailing list