[keycloak-dev] User Federation Provider Cache

[Bill Burke]

On 6/13/16 9:13 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>
>
> On 13 June 2016 at 15:06, Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com 
> <mailto:bburke at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 6/13/16 4:19 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>     I've never been a fan of how creating user feds outside of the
>>     session was done. It's a completely broken concept and has
>>     several flaws:
>>
>>     a) KeycloakSession doesn't manage instances - we have issues with
>>     both multiple instances being created as well as instances not
>>     being closed.
>>     b) The code that requires an instance needs to know how to create one
>>     c) No way to create a custom way to configure/setup - the model
>>     approach may work for some, but what if a custom provider wants
>>     to store config differently
>>
>>     With that in mind this needs to be fix and not monkey patched.
>>
>>     When requesting an instance of a user federation it should be:
>>
>>     session.getProvider(UserFederationProvider.class, String instanceId)
>>
>
>
>
>>     That's it. It would then be up to the factory of figuring out how
>>     to instantiate it, not the calling code.
>>
>     A user fed provider is often a generic thing that can be
>     configured multiple times for multiple different stores (i.e.
>     LDAP).  So, the model is a must. We don't want people configuring
>     fed providers within keycloak-server.json
>
>     Model will be used by most (all) providers so it needs to be a
>     parameter for creation.  This generic getProvider() method on
>     KeycloakSession just doesn't fit for most situations.  Most
>     mappers fall into this category too.  I have thought about
>     defining a generic ConfigurationModel and datastore that would be
>     used by everything (mappers, fed providers, etc.)
>
>
> Yes, I know. Please read the thread me and Marek and when we discussed 
> this. This really has to be sorted out otherwise we'll continue to 
> have issues with it.

I read it.  Summary is that you need to be able to associate one 
instance per session and the ability for it to be closed when session 
ends.  As long as we don't think some implementation will want an 
instance per method call on the provider, then all this can probably be 
done automatically.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160613/f6508d08/attachment.html