We can remove it in 3.3 or maybe even 3.4. Just add a JIRA to remove it to
3.3 and we can discuss exactly when later.
On 15 June 2017 at 15:03, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I see. Well, I think we can keep for a while. Shall we remove it in
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com>
> 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> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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 ?
>> Pedro Igor
>> keycloak-dev mailing list