[GitHub] spark pull request #17393: [SPARK-20066] [CORE] Add explicit SecurityManager...
Github user markgrover closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17393 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark pull request #17393: [SPARK-20066] [CORE] Add explicit SecurityManager...
Github user srowen commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17393#discussion_r107610921
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/SecurityManager.scala ---
@@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ private[spark] class SecurityManager(
val ioEncryptionKey: Option[Array[Byte]] = None)
extends Logging with SecretKeyHolder {
+ def this(sparkConf: SparkConf) {this(sparkConf, None)}
--- End diff --
Add a blank line after. I think this is more conventional as
`def this(sparkConf: SparkConf) = this(sparkConf, None)`
Because this is private to Spark, is it really something you need to extend?
That is, is there a good case to make this an SPI of sorts?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark pull request #17393: [SPARK-20066] [CORE] Add explicit SecurityManager...
GitHub user markgrover opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17393 [SPARK-20066] [CORE] Add explicit SecurityManager(SparkConf) constructor for backwards compatibility with Java. ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? This adds an explicit SecurityManager(SparkConf) constructor in addition to the existing constructor that takes 2 arguments - SparkConf and ioEncryptionKey. The second argument has a default but that's still not enough if this code is invoked from Java because of [this issue](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13059528/instantiate-a-scala-class-from-java-and-use-the-default-parameters-of-the-const) ## How was this patch tested? Before this PR: mvn clean package -Dspark.version=2.1.0 fails. mvn clean package -Dspark.version=2.0.0 passes. After this PR: mvn clean package -Dspark.version=2.2.0-SNAPSHOT passes. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/markgrover/spark spark-20066 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17393.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #17393 commit 2a3c66f3f2ef89d1bbde61e1144487b5a99b70b1 Author: Mark Grover Date: 2017-03-23T03:41:27Z [SPARK-20066] [CORE] Add explicit SecurityManager(SparkConf) constructor for backwards compatibility with Java --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
