Stan Silvert wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:01 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>
>> I understand. Perhaps I should have said, 'working out of the box on
>> core'. domain-http is currently in core, which is what I'm talking about
>> here.
>
> I don't follow your logic here. You are basically saying that unless
> we can have keycloak in core then there is no point having a core?
Of course that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that domain-http is
currently in core. Web console and other clients use domain-http. If we
want keycloak to authenticate domain-http then keycloak must also be in
core.
I don't follow your logic. If we want web console and other clients to
use keycloak then keycloak must be present, but I really can't see why
you think it *must* be in core.
IMHO the way this should work is that we identify the extension points
you need to integrate keycloak, looking at your kcauth branch this looks
fairly simple, basically just a way to add some handlers and
Authentication mechanisms. You then have the keycloak module use these
extension points to integrate with core. IMHO this will give a much
cleaner result and keeps all the keycloak related stuff in the keycloak
module.
There are many possible solutions:
* Don't do the split
The split has been on the table for over 6 months, it is going ahead.
* Do the split, but allow core to see the full set of modules.
This makes no sense. If it has all the modules it is not core.
* Move domain-http out of core.
* Allow the extra dependencies.
* Redesign domain-http
If by redesign you mean add some extension points to allow keycloak to
hook into it without requiring keycloak code in domain-http then this is
exactly what we should do.
If you want a hand with this I should be able to help you out.
Stuart
* others?
>
> Core can't actually do anything out of the box, it is a runtime that
> other distributions will build on.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In all honesty we are highly unlikely to ever have accepted a PR
that
>>>>> added all these dependencies to the core in any case, so it is a
>>>>> problem that would have had to be solved at some point anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>
>>>>> Stan Silvert wrote:
>>>>>> I'm starting to have doubts about this split.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now I'm trying to integrate the Keycloak (client-side)
adapter
>>>>>> into build-core so that the web console can use Keycloak for
>>>>>> authentication. The problem is that there is a huge web of
>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>> that must be moved over from build to build-core.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly is the split trying to solve?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/27/2014 12:19 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I am moderately confident that we will be ready to split
out
>>>>>>> Wildfly
>>>>>>> core into a separate repository early next week (I'm not
saying
>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>> will definitely happen in this time frame, just that it
should be
>>>>>>> possible).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once this is ready to go I think the basic process will be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Code freeze on Master
>>>>>>> - Create the core repo, push new rewritten core history
>>>>>>> - Release core 1.0.0.Beta1
>>>>>>> - Create PR against core WF repo that deletes everything in
>>>>>>> core, and
>>>>>>> uses the core 1.0.0.Beta1 release
>>>>>>> - End of code freeze
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>
>>