[keycloak-user] Keycloak Proxy Rename

[Jan Garaj]

(auth) "proxy" is a common and well-known name for this type of component -
for example https://github.com/bitly/oauth2_proxy ,
http://docs.grafana.org/tutorials/authproxy/.

See Google trends:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=auth%20proxy,auth%20adapter,auth%20component,auth%20module,auth%20extension
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: http://www.jangaraj.com / http://monitoringartist.com
 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jangaraj


On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:30 PM <keycloak-user-request at lists.jboss.org>
wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>
> To: Hynek Mlnarik <hmlnarik at redhat.com>
> Cc: keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>, keycloak-user <
> keycloak-user at 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 at 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 at 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
> >> _______________________________________________
>