APPLICATION_PATH will still take priority but it also needs the caller to identify a path, as opposed to a default one chosen by convention by the system for the impersonating or impersonated user. Second, the setting signifies an intent to use resources of the specified user, like I noted in the discussion, which in future could include resources other than just path. If you have further questions I suggest we take it up on the discussion thread as opposed to the voting thread. I think what you are asking (voting) for is still 2. a.
Thanks On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Vlad Rozov <[email protected]> wrote: > My view is from a different angle. APPLICATION_PATH takes the priority and > is used if specified. For me it's odd to use another settings to specify > default, when the APPLICATION_PATH can be explicitly set. > > Thank you, > > Vlad > > > > On 5/24/17 07:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote: > >> The way I see it, based on your comments your vote is for option 2. a) >> which is default to impersonated user and caller uses APPLICATION_PATH to >> override the path to use impersonating user if needed. Not sure why we >> would need a separate vote. The new setting in option 1. b would default >> to >> impersonated user and in 2. b will default to impersonating user. >> >> Thanks >> >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Vlad Rozov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> IMO, it should be different vote. In case APPLICATION_PATH is explicitly >>> specified, it should be used. If it is not specified, there are few >>> options >>> to consider. >>> 1. My suggestion was always default to the impersonated user home >>> directory as a starting point for constructing APPLICATION_PATH >>> 2. Your suggestion is to have another settings that will allow to choose >>> between impersonated and impersonating users. Please propose what will be >>> the default for the new setting ( a) impersonating or b) impersonated). >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Vlad >>> >>> >>> On 5/23/17 22:00, Pramod Immaneni wrote: >>> >>> I thought it was the mechanism you suggested to specify impersonating >>>> user's directory so I listed it here. If I am mistaken and your option >>>> is >>>> not covered, please include it and since it is early in the voting folks >>>> can include it in their voting preference. If not, please provide your >>>> choice. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Vlad Rozov <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't see how option a is applicable here. In case APPLICATION_PATH is >>>> >>>>> explicitly specified should not it be used independently of >>>>> impersonation? >>>>> It can point to any location, not necessarily to home directory of >>>>> impersonating or impersonated user. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Vlad >>>>> >>>>> On 5/23/17 10:34, Pramod Immaneni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Based on the discussion on the dev list on this topic, captured here >>>>> >>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6abb0f58427a70396f943f >>>>>> 99adc7534431016024f61703b248ce7bfb@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E>, >>>>>> a few different approaches were discussed including the pros and >>>>>> cons. I >>>>>> would like to put the suggested approaches up for a vote. Please go >>>>>> through >>>>>> the thread above if you are unfamiliar with the topic. Here are the >>>>>> options. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Let the default remain as the impersonating user >>>>>> a. The user specifies to use impersonated user's directory >>>>>> by >>>>>> setting the APPLICATION_PATH attribute. >>>>>> b. The user specifies the use of impersonated user's >>>>>> resources >>>>>> using >>>>>> a new setting that will internally set the APPLICATION_PATH to the >>>>>> corresponding value and any other resources in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Change the default from current behavior to use the impersonated >>>>>> user's >>>>>> resources instead >>>>>> a. and b. similar to 1. but specifying impersonating user's >>>>>> resources instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> My vote is for Option 1, Sub-option b). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
