You make an interesting point about usability here. At the same time, it highlights the fact that the installation would not be from an Apache distribution channel and I would be concerned about folks checking out the demo and once it was working not picking up an official release.
The current demo is based on your build from the master branch - I assume. This isn't an official Apache release which is may be problematic license-wise. The steps that you describe for trying it out are necessary only because it requires a build from master - until 0.8.0 is released. At which time, the user would download an official Apache release of Knox 0.8.0, unzip it, copy the templates into place and fire it up. It might be interesting to consider a script for copying the templates for various configurations into place as a usability improvement. I will try and find some Apache language about non-Apache distributions for such a purpose and see whether it is legal to reference them. In the meantime, I would be interested in others' opinions on the matter. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Jérôme LELEU <lel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > You're right: maintaining the demos is a work in itself and we could > (should) put samples in the templates directory. > > Though, I think the demo is valuable to promote Knox: let's say someone as > an Hadoop installation and want to secure it: how can he try Knox? Checkout > the source, build it, copy the templates at the right place: it might be > discouraging and complicated for a beginner. While with the demo: checkout, > copy the launch command and test... > > In any case, it's in the pac4j organization. > > Thanks. > Best regards, > Jérôme > > > 2016-01-19 16:11 GMT+01:00 larry mccay <larry.mc...@gmail.com>: > > > Hmmmm... > > > > I think that providing appropriate templates (see the templates directory > > in the knox install) for both the knoxsso.xml (instead of idp.xml) and > > sandbox.xml to reflect the same config would provide the same value and > be > > self contained without the need to keep the binaries up to date in the > demo > > with each release. > > > > There is probably value in a blog for early access to pac4j provider demo > > that could point to the demo. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jérôme LELEU <lel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Should we add a link in the documentation to point to the demo? > > > > > > 2016-01-19 14:19 GMT+01:00 larry mccay <larry.mc...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > That's great! > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Jérôme LELEU <lel...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Following my own idea, here is a demo with the Knox / pac4j > support: > > > > > https://github.com/pac4j/knox-pac4j-demo > > > > > Feel free to submit pull requests if you want me to amend it. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Jérôme > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-01-18 11:03 GMT+01:00 Jérôme LELEU <lel...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > It's great news! > > > > > > > > > > > > One more thing I'm thinking of: we always have a demo > corresponding > > > to > > > > a > > > > > > pac4j support. It would be great to have a knox-pac4j-demo and > > > > reference > > > > > it > > > > > > from the manual. I can handle it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Jérôme > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-01-17 6:37 GMT+01:00 larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > >> KNOX-641 and KNOX-642 have both been committed to master. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There is a new docs book where you can check out the pac4j docs > > > > > available: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://knox.apache.org/books/knox-0-8-0/user-guide.html#Pac4j+Provider+-+CAS+/+OAuth+/+SAML+/+OpenID+Connect > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I have some additional ideas for the docs that I will roll out > in > > > the > > > > > next > > > > > >> few days. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We need to discuss the identity assertion approach for 0.8.0. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think we are on track for 1/29 release date. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
