[keycloak-dev] Provider config

[Stian Thorgersen]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2014 8:49:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Provider config
> 
> That's doesn't necessarily my thoughts are any good though.  I'll
> iterate you can reiterate I guess...

I thought it was implied that I thought your thoughts where good ;)

This will take a few iterations to get correct IMO

> 
> On 7/22/2014 12:19 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> > Sounds like you've thought about this more than me, so I'll leave it with
> > you to sort out ;)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2014 4:57:37 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Provider config
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/22/2014 9:53 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> >>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> >>>> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2014 2:43:11 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Provider config
> >>>>
> >>>> Certain providers may have multiple instances/configs of themselves in
> >>>> the same realm.  i.e. authentication providers (soon to be federation
> >>>> providers) which may be federating multiple different LDAP databases.
> >>>> Also, in the future, social may turn into a "federated broker SPI" where
> >>>> multiple generic federated broker providers can be configured per realm
> >>>> (i.e. SAML or other openid connections).
> >>>
> >>> Didn't consider that, we'll definitively need it
> >>>
> >>
> >> In my private fork, I pulled getProviderFactory methods from
> >> DefaultKeycloakSessionFactory up to KeycloakSessionFactory methods.
> >> Then defined my own specialized create methods.  I don't use
> >> KeycloakSession.getProvider() anymore.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I honestly don't want a generic "provider" admin console page where you
> >>>> generically configure the providers.  I think it is a mistake.  We're
> >>>> supposed to be making things easier and we should be making tailored
> >>>> console pages for what we ship out of the box.
> >>>
> >>> What about we allow configuring specific SPIs in the correct place, but
> >>> still use a form that is populated with labels/inputs from the providers
> >>> ConfigOptions?
> >>>
> >>
> >> LDAP config already doesn't fit into pure labels/inputs.  IMO, rendering
> >> information belongs in HTML :)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Burke
> >> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> >> http://bill.burkecentral.com
> >>
> 
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>