Hi, I would like to review our UMA implementation (which is based on v1), and get it aligned with the new version, v2. One of the main changes we need is that now UMA has a specific grant type that should be used by clients to obtain RPTs. The Authorization API no longer exists. Other changes are basically related with parts of the specs we are missing that don't really bring issues for people already using UMA in Keycloak. But new features and better UMA support. My question is if it is reasonable to have those changes in 3.2.0.CR1 and how ? For instance, if we decide to have those changes in, specially the new UMA grant type, should we keep/deprecate the legacy Authorization API for backward compatibility or just remove it from AuthZ REST API ? Regards. Pedro Igor _______________________________________________ keycloak-dev mailing list keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev

I see. Well, I think we can keep for a while. Shall we remove it in 3.2.0.Final ? On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Depends on amount of work. If it's not to much extra work I'd prefer to > have backwards compatibility for a while to allow users to migrate then > remove in the last 3.x release. If that is a lot of work then we should > just remove it. > > On 14 June 2017 at 14:50, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to review our UMA implementation (which is based on v1), and >> get it aligned with the new version, v2. >> >> One of the main changes we need is that now UMA has a specific grant type >> that should be used by clients to obtain RPTs. The Authorization API no >> longer exists. >> >> Other changes are basically related with parts of the specs we are >> missing >> that don't really bring issues for people already using UMA in Keycloak. >> But new features and better UMA support. >> >> My question is if it is reasonable to have those changes in 3.2.0.CR1 and >> how ? For instance, if we decide to have those changes in, specially the >> new UMA grant type, should we keep/deprecate the legacy Authorization API >> for backward compatibility or just remove it from AuthZ REST API ? >> >> Regards. >> Pedro Igor >> _______________________________________________ >> keycloak-dev mailing list >> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >> > >