Hi Vahid, > On Feb 28, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Vahid Jalili <[email protected]> wrote: > > We did not discuss the naming, "oidc" vs "keycloak" or "custos". Shall we > postpone it to Tuesday or prefer to follow in this thread?
Based on our discussion I think it makes sense to use more specific naming and
use "custos". Specifically I propose:
- in config/oidc_backends_config.xml the name of the backend is "Custos".
Implementation would be "Custos" as well although with this approach perhaps
the backend of "Custos" could imply the appropriate implementation (likewise,
backend of "Google" would imply the PSA implementation). Configuration would be
simplified to:
<provider name="Custos">
<client_id>...</client_id>
<client_secret>...</client_secret>
<redirect_uri>http://localhost:8000/authnz/custos/callback</redirect_uri>
<http://localhost:8000/authnz/custos/callback%3C/redirect_uri%3E>
<realm>...</realm>
</provider>
- IdentityProvider implementation would be called CustosAuthnz in
lib/galaxy/authnz/custos_authnz.py
- model/database table oidc_token would be renamed to custos_authnz_token
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Marcus
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
