We shouldn't undertake any big refactoring of these right now. We are
planning a much bigger overhaul around the storage layer in Keycloak.Next.
With regards to clients I'm still considering whether or not a realm needs
to have more than one client store. At the moment I'm leaning towards that
it should have just one and the API should be fairly simple and easy to
replace with something custom.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 05:29, Justin Gross <jgross.biz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Your feedback is much appreciated! Especially the note on UserStorage
being officially supported and therefore guaranteed to be backward
compatible. I hadn’t planned on changing that interface but I could see how
by “transplanting” large pieces of it to an ancestor that someone could
change the ancestor and then negatively impact compatibility in UserStorage
SPI accidentally or by happenstance. Definitely good to keep in mind and
I’ll make sure my proposal doesn’t effect User Storage SPI directly or make
it any easier to disturb it.
From: Marek Posolda
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 3:02 PM
To: Pedro Igor Silva; Justin Gross
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Storage SPI: Users, Clients, and ?
I remember we already discuss this some time ago. I agree that have some
"generic" storage SPI could be beneficial for various use-cases. For
example Role Storage SPI or Group Storage SPI could be beneficial for
LDAP integration - Keycloak currently supports syncing LDAP roles and
groups to KC database and use role (group) mappings based on the role
(group) mappings from LDAP, but there are some corner cases, which
causes that data are not always 100% accurate. For example when some
LDAP group is changed, Keycloak is not notified about this change etc.
But agree with Pedro, that complexity of this probably won't justify the
added value. We can maybe think about it for Keycloak.next if something
like this can work, but ATM I have quite doubts... But maybe I am wrong
and you come with some cool design proposal :)
BTV. Just a warning, that if you think about refactoring of current User
+ Client Storage SPI (and not adding any new SPI), then the potential
challenge is, that UserStorage SPI is officially supported and is
guaranteed to be backwards compatible. In other words, existing
interfaces can't be easily changed in backwards incompatible way.
On 10/06/2019 20:25, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> I see your point now. Please, go one with your PR or design document I'm
> sure you'll get tons of reviews as you are touching a quite sensitive
> Stian can talk more about this, but maybe this is something for
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:07 PM Justin Gross <jgross.biz(a)gmail.com>
>> Thanks for your feedback Pedro.
>> I apologize I think I may have misspoke or misrepresented my thoughts. A
>> design document might prove helpful in explaining.
>> I didn’t intend to advocate for a single multi-purpose SPI but rather a
>> “parent” SPI which both User Storage and Client Storage could inherit
>> (implementation wise) and potential future storage SPIs.
>> Looking over User Storage SPI and Client Storage SPI I see a lot of the
>> code in Client Storage Provider (and related files) as copied from User
>> Storage and code that is not specific to either and related only to
>> itself. There are more Client Storage Provider related stuff that, when
>> finished, will probably also just be a copy/duplicate of existing
>> code in User Storage Provider (and related).
>> Given that most storage SPI’s will probably have similar “storage
>> interfaces and functions it would make sense to me to create a common
>> ancestor rather than continue to duplicate code in every specific
>> SPI thereby actually simplifying (instead of making more complex) the
>> and Client (and other future) storage SPI’s.
>> My proposition (I’ll PR to community) is that we move code that is not
>> specific to User Storage (or Client) but that is actually general code
>> (code currently being duplicated or soon to be if finishing Client
>> SPI) into “storage” classes and interfaces. This would group together
>> storage interfaces and functionality that are general and thereby
>> simplifies the production of new storage SPI’s as new storage SPI’s can
>> narrow their focus to the specific requirements you spoke of Pedro.
>> Thank you,
>> Justin Gross
>> *From: *Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com>
>> *Sent: *Monday, June 10, 2019 8:03 AM
>> *To: *Justin Gross <jgross.biz(a)gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> *Subject: *Re: [keycloak-dev] Storage SPI: Users, Clients, and ?
>> Hi Justin,
>> Personally, I think that having a single and multi-purpose SPI can lead
>> a much more complex and full of hacks to address the different
>> when integrating with different sources and data. In any case, I would
>> suggest you to start a design document and send a PR to
. So we can understand
>> better your proposal and discuss it.
>> Pedro Igor
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Gross <jgross.biz(a)gmail.com>
>> Born out of necessity it looks like originally (for storage SPI) there
>> only user storage SPI and eventually came a partial client storage SPI
>> motivated by a need for Openshift integration. The more I think about
>> it could be finished, and the more I look at the user storage SPI, the
>> I am finding code within user storage SPI that can be generalized as
>> storage SPI.
>> Seeking feedback on refactoring existing user storage SPI related
>> interfaces to be agnostic to users and generalized as “storage SPI”.
>> should reduce the need for duplicating similar code when implementing
>> storage SPI (ie: client storage SPI).
>> In the future I could see more storage SPI’s being created and I feel
>> would be extremely useful.
>> Thank you,
>> Justin Gross
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev mailing list