(auth) "proxy" is a common and well-known name for this type of component -
for example
Github repo/code stat shows "proxy" preference as well.
What I don't like is a "keycloak" in the name - actually it's a generic
"proxy" implementation, which works with (almost) any OpenID provider.
There is no "keycloak" project lock-in at the moment.
My current prefered name is "OAuth Standalone Proxy" from Keycloak project,
repo keycloak/oauth-standalone-proxy.
A similar case is etcd from coreos project, repo coreos/etcd - you really
don't need to keep organization name in the project name.
*Jan Garaj*
Web:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:30 PM <keycloak-user-request(a)lists.jboss.org>
wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org>
To: Hynek Mlnarik <hmlnarik(a)redhat.com>
Cc: keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>, keycloak-user <
keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org>
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:54:42 -0300
Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Keycloak Proxy Rename
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
naming.
During our team call today I suggested just "keycloak-adapter", which
would cover the apps which don't have its own specific adapter
solution.
That said, maybe we should open a new poll? I just created a new one
where people can vote/suggest:
https://poll.ly/#/Lbww4ebG
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
Adapter"?
>
>
> 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[1] to Keycloak
>> organization. In order to accomplish that, I've been working with Rohith
>> updating some of its dependencies[2].
>>
>> 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:
>>
>>
https://doodle.com/poll/gux626ktscgpr96t
>>
>> Also, feel free to suggest other names and it will be included.
>>
>> [1] -
https://github.com/gambol99/keycloak-proxy
>> [2] -
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-7265
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> abstractj
>> _______________________________________________