On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 23:44, Dmitry Telegin <dt(a)acutus.pro> wrote:
Hello Stian,
On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 20:13 +0100, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> It is very unlikely that we will remove the master realm in 5.x.
Glad to hear that, thx for the info
> There are already a way to deal with global config which is in
standalone.xml. The limitation there currently is that changes require a
server restart and we don't have a schema so it's a simple key-value type
config. Changes here can be done through jboss-cli and with domain mode you
can have these propagated to all nodes in the cluster. At this point we
won't consider adding another level of global config like Apache Commons
Configuration.
I'd also add my 2¢ to the list of limitations:
- it's impossible to modify configuration in runtime from either Keycloak
itself or providers (or is it? DMR maybe?)
It is possible, but not that nice. There is Java libs to interact with DMR.
We use it in some tests.
- in standalone-ha mode, you'll still need to propagate the
changes to the
nodes somehow.
Yes, that's what domain mode is for really.
I think for now I'll stick to using master realm attributes. And if
Keycloak is about to undergo such a drastic changes, I hope it will be
announced in advance so I'll have enough time to port my code.
Absolutely - it will be a lengthy discussion and we will keep it the
discussion open. So keep monitoring keycloak-dev ;)
Thanks for clarifications,
Dmitry
>
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 10:47, Dmitry Telegin <dt(a)acutus.pro> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The idea of getting rid of master realm has been around for years [1]
[2]. Just wanted to know, what's the current stance on this? Can we tell
for sure that there still will be master realm in KC 5.0? Or can we tell
the opposite?
> >
> > Some background: we're working on a Keycloak extension (provider) that
needs to operate a global (non-realm-based) writable config. So I'm
choosing between the two options:
> > - store config keys as master realm attributes;
> > - introduce full-fledged configuration system based on Apache Commons
Configuration, backed by its own DB table and Infinispan cache.
> >
> > The latter is obviously more complex, however more powerful. I've
posted a write-up on it about a year ago [3], but didn't get any feedback.
I hope it could be reevaluated today; for Keycloak proper, there are
several use cases like auto-update settings, admin email, periodic tasks
etc.
> >
> > The former, on the contrary, is much easier to implement, however
there is a risk of having to rewrite everything from scratch should master
realm bite the dust one day.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dmitry Telegin
> > CTO, Acutus s.r.o.
> >
> > [1]
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/2015-December/006066.html
> > [2]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-3443
> > [3]
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/2017-December/010261.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >