8000 [Quarkus 4] Adapt Keycloak JSON handling to Jackson 3 by Pepo48 · Pull Request #54612 · keycloak/keycloak · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

[Quarkus 4] Adapt Keycloak JSON handling to Jackson 3 - #54612

Open
Pepo48 wants to merge 1 commit into
keycloak:quarkus-nextfrom
Pepo48:issue-54599
Open

Pepo48 wants to merge 1 commit into
keycloak:quarkus-nextfrom
Pepo48:issue-54599

Conversation

@Pepo48
@Pepo48 Pepo48 commented Nov 4, 2026 •
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closes: #54599

Here I decided to move the existing Jackson 3 representation adapters into a shared module and use them in both the admin client and server. I also kept their mapper settings separate and preserved compatibility existing Jackson 2 JSON tree values and mapper consumers.

Note: keycloak/keycloak-client#253 also requires matching source-sync changes.

Closes: keycloak#54599

Signed-off-by: Peter Zaoral <pzaoral@redhat.com>
@shawkins shawkins left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes makes sense. I'm wondering though do we have captured somewhere what the plan is for jackson 2 support? It should at least be deprecated in 27.0 correct?

cc @vmuzikar

@Pepo48
Pepo48 commented Nov 5, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@shawkins the direction that Quarkus goes is clear, at least for the server-side, so I count with the deprecation (though I'm not sure whether it was properly discussed somewhere, at least not here on Github). For keycloak-admin-client side, we probably don't need to deprecate anything and leave as is (with an exception of keycloak/keycloak-client#253).

@shawkins
shawkins commented Nov 6, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

though I'm not sure whether it was properly discussed somewhere, at least not here on Github

It should be mentioned somewhere though as custom endpoint logic could be affected correct?

For keycloak-admin-client side, we probably don't need to deprecate anything and leave as is

Why? Wouldn't it be best to keep Jackson 2 as a legacy concern?

@vmuzikar
vmuzikar commented Nov 6, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It should be mentioned somewhere though as custom endpoint logic could be affected correct?

Definitely... It's a breaking change. It would be good to make it part of this PR, or a follow-up.

Comment thread core-jackson3/README.md
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It 8000 might be worth double checking if we need this compatibility layer, if we can't just migrate to Jackson 3.

@Pepo48
Pepo48 commented Nov 6, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Why? Wouldn't it be best to keep Jackson 2 as a legacy concern?

That's what I meant - to keep both, without deprecating Jackson 2. Currently we have both admin client variants in the repo, side by side, therefore I said I would keep as is.

@Pepo48 Pepo48 mentioned this pull request Nov 6, 2026
8 of 13 tasks
@shawkins
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm proposing to make the representation changes with #54909 and add a note which may eventually be subsumed by the switch to Jackson 3.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

0