On Thursday 14 July 2016 20:55:26 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > On Thursday 14 July 2016 16:02:46 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > >> I think we should have the service user concept and getting a service > >> user is pretty easy. So I don't see the need for something need, > >> competing with service users. > >> > >> We can discuss about a scripting service user which gets the required > >> access rights though > > > > +1, see my comment in SLING-5252 from yesterday > > > > There should be a service user for scripting with limited read access to > > /apps and /libs (and maybe /etc). > > > > I see Radu's point in having a ResourceResolver provider in Scripting > > Core. > > > > All Scripting implementations (everyone!) could ask this provider for a > > "script reader" ResourceResolver which would call > > ResourceProviderFactory#getServiceResourceResolver(null) – instead of > > defining a service user mapping for every scripting implementation. > > All that is required is a configuration per bundle and that's it. Do we > really need an API for that?
No, +1 for scripting service users (subsystems: script reader, cache writer) and mappings. > In addition, what if for whatever reason want to use a different service > user for the jsp engine than for the sightly engine? You could still add dedicated service users and ACLs. > With the proposal we're tying something together which does not > necessarily belong together just for the sake of saving a single OSGi > configuration. Right. I'm not convinced from that approach either. O. > Carsten
