If this was important we could announce on blog and Twitter to reach a
slightly bigger audience. End of the day though I don't think it is so if
you ask on user mailing list and no-one replies within a week then I think
we can assume it's not much used.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:16, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I see. However my point still remains - I think that just quite
percentage of Keycloak users is regularly following keycloak-users mailing
list. However I don't have any better idea where to announce those type of
messages. Blog or "news channel" is probably not so great place for it. And
any new ML like "keycloak-announcements" is likely also not so great thing
as 3 mailing lists seem to be quite lot... I've just sent to keycloak-users
as you mentioned.
On 21/02/2019 12:45, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
Keycloak User mailing list is for users of Keycloak
Keycloak Developer mailing list is for core team and contributors, let's
not encourage more non-contributors to join that list
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 10:27, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I've just sent it to keycloak-user.
> But question is, if keycloak-user mailing list is good place for such
> things? I think most people use keycloak-user mailing list to search for
> solutions to their particular problem or send their particular issue with
> Keycloak. But not sure how much people read this mailing list regularly?
> IMO we should instruct community to monitor to keycloak-dev mailing list
> for general announcements from Keycloak team (EG. release announcements,
> questionnaires, ask for removing/deprecating some component) as in
> keycloak-user informations can be easily lost.
> On 20/02/2019 21:25, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> DId you send this to user mailing list as well? If not you should.
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 19:45, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the confirm! Will wait few more days if someone has any
>> reason against removing it. If not, will likely send PR early next week for
>> removing it.
>> On 20/02/2019 15:32, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>> +1 To just removing it as long if there's no mention of it in the
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 14:44, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder if we can remove JaxrsBearerTokenFilter?
>>> Jut to add some context, the JaxrsBearerTokenFilter is the
>>> which we have in the codebase and which allows to "secure" the
>>> Application by adding the JaxrsFilter, which implements our OIDC
>>> adapter. Bill added this thing in the early days of Keycloak. I
>>> it a bit few years ago as someone wanted to secure the JaxRS
>>> on Fuse. But this was before we had the proper Fuse adapter.
>>> This thing was never documented and we never had any
>>> examples/quickstarts for it. We have just few automated tests (in the
>>> old testsuite). IMO it is very obsolete now as you can probably always
>>> secure your application through some other oficially supported way
>>> Servlet filter or any of our other built-in adapters).
>>> Does anyone have any reason why we shouldn't remove this?
>>> If not, I wonder if we can remove it directly without "deprecation
>>> period"? Considering that this was never documented or announced, it
>>> probably can't be treated as a Keycloak feature, but rather an
>>> "implementation detail" or "prototype" and hence removing
>>> may be fine? In this case, we won't need to migrate the tests from the
>>> old testsuite (which is my main motivation for writing this email :)
>>> keycloak-dev mailing list