>I think that's slightly nicer - but I guess either way works.
I changed it as you suggested.
>
>>
>> On a slightly related topic, looking more closely to the
>> ServiceUserMapperImpl I see that there are several levels of fallback
>>for
>> service user resolution (fallback to bundle default, or to global
>> default). While this offers a lot of flexibility, to me it feels a bit
>> strange in the context of a security feature. If defaults are set, it
>>can
>> happen (especially at startup) that code is executed using different
>> serviceUsers, e.g. a component can execute using the bundle default or
>> global default until its specific subService is available, and it can
>>be
>> easily imagined how this can cause subtle errors.
>>
>
>Right, I guess we have not thought about it initially and simply assumed
>that all users are properly setup anyway.
>
>I wouldn't mind removing the fallbacks - although that is an
>incompatible change. But let's open an issue for that.
I created [1] to discuss and track this.
>
>For this issue, I haven't seen any strong objection, so let's move on
>and get it done.
OK, the code landed in revision 1662665.
Marius
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-4461
