Re: where should we define service user mappings?

[Radu Cotescu]

Thanks for the feedback! Should I create a scripting.txt provisioning file
in launchpad builder? Then I'd make the following changes:

1. undo some of the changes from r1763177 to *repoinit.txt* and bring this
file to this state:
[feature name=repoinit]

[artifacts]
  org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.repoinit.parser/1.0.4
  org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.jcr.repoinit/1.0.2
  org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.provisioning.model/1.4.4

2. and *scripting.txt* would become:
[:repoinit]
create path (sling:Folder) /libs
create path (sling:Folder) /apps
create service user sling-scripting

set ACL for sling-scripting
    deny    jcr:all     on /libs,/apps
    allow   jcr:read    on /libs,/apps
end

[artifacts]
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.api/2.1.8
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.core/2.0.38
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.javascript/2.0.30
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.jsp/2.1.8
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.jsp.taglib/2.2.6
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.sightly/1.0.18
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.sightly.js.provider/1.0.10

org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.sightly.models.provider/1.0.0
    org.apache.sling/org.apache.sling.scripting.sightly.repl/1.0.2

[configurations]
# configure the ScriptCache for scripts used by
org.apache.sling.scripting.sightly.js.provider
  org.apache.sling.scripting.core.impl.ScriptCacheImpl
    org.apache.sling.scripting.cache.additional_extensions=["js"]


org.apache.sling.serviceusermapping.impl.ServiceUserMapperImpl.amended-org.apache.sling.scripting.sightly.js.provider

user.mapping=["org.apache.sling.scripting.sightly.js.provider\=sling-scripting"]

Thanks,
Radu

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 at 14:25 Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi Radu,
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Radu Cotescu <r...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...I've done this
> > in sling.txt in the launchpad builder project (not yet committed), but
> I've
> > been thinking that maybe we should create a service users provisioning
> file
> > where we define this....
>
> If we go in the direction of smaller features in our provisioning
> model (which makes sense IMO) we should make those "feature models"
> self-contained, so a feature "foo" might have a foo.txt partial model
> with the bundles, repoinit statements and ServiceUserMapper that it
> requires.
>
> To me a global "a service users provisioning file" sounds...too global ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>