Hi Abdul,
Friendly bump this thread. Do we have an agreement on which route we
are going to take?
Thanks,
Ping
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:50 PM Ping Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would vote for: `[Vote -1] To use display_name along with dag_id as DAG
> params`.
>
> `dag_id` is a fundamental core
I agree this is completely untenable, at least for Airflow. I commented on the
Jira ticket as well with more thoughts.
Cheers,
Niko
From: Jarek Potiuk
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:08:23 PM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][NOTICE]
Comment to Subham's question:
> In addition, are there any other user scenarios, beyond multi-tenancy, that
> Airflow users are looking to enable and that require this pluggability?
> Asking as I haven't come across them. Overall, I believe we need more
> information on your proposal before
Great idea Vikram, I love the idea of making this a provider/pluggable.
In some ways, we already have a pluggable mechanism for Authentication with
Auth Backends *[1]*. Where we will need lot more work I think is:
1. Replacing Access Control provided by FAB with a base/core security
model
