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

Well, if a redo is in the plans, I think putting a priority on implementing the client interfaces would be 100% beneficial, reduce redundant code, and ensure endpoints are compliant with the SDKs. :) Scott Rossillo Smartling | Senior Software Engineer srossillo(a)smartling.com On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:32 PM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: 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&gt; 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