[keycloak-dev] User Federation provider instances
Marek Posolda
mposolda at redhat.com
Fri Apr 29 07:16:17 EDT 2016
On 29/04/16 12:42, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>
>
> On 29 April 2016 at 11:48, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com
> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 29/04/16 11:39, Marek Posolda wrote:
>> On 29/04/16 11:06, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29 April 2016 at 10:58, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29/04/16 10:22, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have 3 types of providers:
>>>>
>>>> * Server configured - no config or config from keycloak-server
>>>> * Realm configured - config from realm model
>>>> * Instance configured - multiple instances per realm
>>>>
>>>> Removing master realm as we plan to do means that realm
>>>> configured provider factories can get realm from
>>>> KeycloakContext as there's only one realm per-session.
>>>>
>>> In theory yes. In practice there might be still corner cases
>>> when you need to deal with multiple realms inside same
>>> KeycloakSession (like export/import for example). But hope
>>> we can handle most of the cases by assume that
>>> KeycloakContext has correct realm set.
>>>
>>>
>>> Corner cases like that is easy - we'd use create a
>>> KeycloakSession per-realm, making sure KeycloakContext is
>>> initialized properly.
>>>
>>>
>>>> For instance configured I propose we add getProvider(Class
>>>> c, String id, String instanceId) to provider factory. The
>>>> it's up to the provider factory itself to extract the
>>>> config from the realm model or another source. It also
>>>> means that the session can easily keep track of these and
>>>> only create one id+instanceId per session.
>>>>
>>> ah, ok. I somehow missed the proposal.
>>>
>>> It should work fine, I think it's quite similar to what I
>>> proposed. Despite I proposed to send whole state to provider
>>> factory (aka. UserFederationProviderModel) instead of just
>>> instanceId and then assume that state must properly
>>> implement "hashCode" to ensure that session can keep track
>>> of these and return provider of already used state.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, very similar, but I think the devil is in the details. In
>>> my proposal the factory itself knows how to extract the state,
>>> so it's then up to the factory to decide how state should be
>>> stored. A custom provider may need to store config in a separate
>>> custom entity, which KeycloakSessionFactory wouldn't know how to
>>> retrieve.
>> Well, for custom SPI providers, you can simply use "String" as
>> the state type. Defacto I see the only difference between
>> proposals, that yours is simpler as it's just always using
>> "String" as state type instead of having type dynamic.
>>
>>
>> I am not saying it's big issue though. For example
>> UserFederationManager now already have all
>> UserFederationProviderModel instances configured for realm, so
>> with yours, you will need to call:
>>
>> session.getProvider(UserFederationProvider.class, "ldap",
>> providerModel.getId());
>>
>> and session will need to load UserFederationProviderModel again
>> from realm as it knows just id. But since it's supposed to be
>> cached, there is no additional performance penalty in loading
>> UserFederationProviderModel again.
> Well ;-)
>
> But on the other hand with simpler proposal... All
> UserFederationProviderFactory implementations provided by people
> will always need to load UserFederationProviderModel at the beginning:
>
> UserFederationProviderModel providerModel =
> session.getContext().getRealm().getFederationProvider(id);
>
> so there is some shared logic, which can be possibly handled by
> keycloak, but with simpler proposal, people will always need to
> call this in their UserFederationProviderFactory implementations.
>
>
> Depends. Should the "caller" actually load the
> UserFederationProviderModel at all? It seems like all the caller needs
> to know is the instanceId and shouldn't need to deal with loading the
> model/config.
Yeah, we can change the "caller" ( UserFederationManager ) to load just
id. The UserModel has just "federationLink" with the ID, so we don't
need to load the full UserFederationProviderModel in
UserFederationManager. During registration or lookup new user, you need
a list of full provider models though as they need to be sorted by
priority. But that's very minor....
There is still also the second minor issue I mentioned above, that
UserFederationProvider implementation always needs
UserFederationProviderModel (besides some simple impl, which don't have
any custom config). So in many cases the
UserFederationProviderFactory.create implementations will always start
with load of UserFederationProviderModel as they have only ID. So that's
common logic, which can be theoretically handled by our SPI framework
instead. But also quite minor though...
I don't have strong opinion that simpler proposal with "String" is not
enough.
> Another thing, but that would require db changes for sure, could we
> have a generic configuration mechanism? So rather than having to
> create a table for each SPI we could have a single providers table.
> That would make it much easier to introduce new SPIs.
+1
Marek
>
>
>
> Marek
>
>>
>> So I agree we can try to go simpler way and possibly enhance just
>> if we find another SPI limitations.
>>
>> Marek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marek
>>>> On 29 Apr 2016 09:43, "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, AFAIK we have open JIRA for this for a long time ago.
>>>>
>>>> It's the same issue for IdentityProvider (and maybe
>>>> some others SPI too) that they bypass "official" way
>>>> for create provider via
>>>> session.getProvider(providerClazz) and hence they are
>>>> not registered in KeycloakSession and "close" method is
>>>> not called for them.
>>>>
>>>> The issue is that our SPI is a bit limited IMO and
>>>> doesn't support "stateful" providers. The providers are
>>>> created through
>>>> "ProviderFactory.create(KeycloakSession)". So the only
>>>> available state of provider ATM is just ProviderFactory
>>>> + KeycloakSession, which is sometimes not sufficient.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can see 2 possibilities to address:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Always make the provider implementation "stateless"
>>>> and ensure all the state is passed as argument to
>>>> provider methods. This is what we already do for some
>>>> providers (for example all methods of UserProvider has
>>>> RealmModel as parameter). So if we rewrite
>>>> UserFederation SPI that UserFederationProviderModel
>>>> will be passed as argument to all methods of
>>>> UserFederationProvider, then it can use "official" way
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) Improve the SPI, so it can properly support
>>>> "stateful" providers. This is more flexible then (1)
>>>> and I would go this way long term.
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking about something like this:
>>>>
>>>> public interface StatefulProvider<S> extends Provider {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> public class StatefulProviderFactory<T extends
>>>> StatefulProvider, S> {
>>>>
>>>> T create(KeycloakSession session, S state);
>>>>
>>>> .......
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and on KEycloakSession new method like this:
>>>>
>>>> <S,T extends StatefulProvider<S>>T getProvider(Class<T> providerClazz, String id,S state);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "state" will need to properly implement equals and
>>>> hashCode, so the SPI can deal with it and not create
>>>> another instance of StatefulProvider if it was called
>>>> for this KeycloakSession with same state before.
>>>>
>>>> Marek
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29/04/16 08:00, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>>> Looking at the code for user federation it looks like
>>>>> user federation provider instances with the same
>>>>> configuration can be created multiple times for a
>>>>> single session. Also they are never closed to
>>>>> resources aren't released.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>>>>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160429/f06af8b9/attachment-0001.html
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list