Only to give a brief context for people not aware of it. Keycloak
Generic Adapter was not well accepted, because the naming is too
vague. So we have to reopen this discussion and think about a better
During our team call today I suggested just "keycloak-adapter", which
would cover the apps which don't have its own specific adapter
That said, maybe we should open a new poll? I just created a new one
where people can vote/suggest:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:38 AM Hynek Mlnarik <hmlnarik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Based on discussion on Stian, let me reopen this topic and add a suggestion.
How about "Standalone Keycloak Adapter" or just "Standalone
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:44 PM Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
> Good afternoon,
> We are considering to transfer or fork the keycloak-proxy to Keycloak
> organization. In order to accomplish that, I've been working with Rohith
> updating some of its dependencies.
> While discussing with our team, we reached the conclusion that call it a
> proxy could potentially increase the scope of the project and also give
> people the wrong idea. Because would be expected things like load balancing,
> rate limiting, and other features. That's not what we want right now.
> I would like to gather some feedback from the community before we move forward.
> So please vote on the following Doodle:
> Also, feel free to suggest other names and it will be included.
>  - https://github.com/gambol99/keycloak-proxy
>  - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-7265
> keycloak-user mailing list