----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com>
To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 February, 2014 2:15:53 PM
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Refactoring Model
On 2/27/2014 11:45 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com>
>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com>
>> Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 27 February, 2014 2:34:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Refactoring Model
>> On 2/27/2014 4:45 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com>
>>>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 February, 2014 3:08:13 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Refactoring Model
>>>> Ok, I did the first phase of this. Most code is now dealing with
>>>> ClientModel rather than UserModel in the TokenService, et. al.
>>>> I hope nobody is working on anything major :) I'm just trying to
>>>> duplicating a lot of code. I"d also like to eventually not use a
>>>> to model any type of client as I'm worried about username clashes
>>> +1 Assuming you're talking about getting rid of
>>> and just pulling all required fields from UserModel into ClientModel. It
>>> would also be nice to remove the "special" roles we have
>>> (KEYCLOAK_APPLICATION and KEYCLOAK_IDENTITY_REQUESTER).
>> I'll do a 2nd rev of this refactoring today and get rid of the
>> ClientModel.agent and special roles too.
>>> One idea I had was to rename ApplicationModel to ResourceModel. A
>>> would only have name and roles. No web-origins, redirect-uris, secret or
>>> scope mapping. Then we'd add an option to ClientModel to automatically
>>> grant access instead. I think that makes the distinction clearer.
>>> Basically if your modelling something that is accessed through roles, you
>>> create a resource. If you're modelling something that wants to login
>>> you create a client. And as some clients would be "internal" they
>>> option of automatically being granted permissions.
>> I like that for an implementation detail at least. Not sure about
>> propagating that idea to the admin console though.
>> Applications have always been special in that they don't require an
>> oauth grant page, can be administered, you can log out of them, and
>> eventually we'll have screens for session management and stuff and
>> things like that for them. For clustering, at least for Wildfly/JBoss,
>> I don't even think it makes sense to have the idea of a
>> I believe cluster nodes would get the same configuration from the domain
>> controller (client_id, secret, etc.). What we can do for a cluster is
>> make Admin URl a Set<URI> maybe even the same with Redirect URI.
> Didn't think of all that. Needs some rethinking. I still think it would be
> nice to have something to represent resources. For example the database
> service from the example, and the realm-admin apps. It doesn't make sense
> that they have credentials, redirect-uris and scopes. They will never
> request a login, only parse bearer tokens.
Currently, the database service doesn't need any registration in the
admin console (and isn't registered in the admin console). All it is
doing is verifying tokens so all it needs is the public key of the
realm. In the future, the only reason to register it with the admin
console is to provide an admin URL so the keycloak server can push
revocation policies or get access stats.
Yes, but that's because it uses realm roles instead of roles associated with the
database service. If you want to have roles specific to a service you need to create an
app to represent it so you can setup role/scope mappings
JBoss, a division of Red Hat