Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Ok, I just noticed I replied to a super old thread because my Email app decided to surface it as if it were new :D Cheers, Alex > On 01.10.2018, at 16:19, Alexander Klimetschek > wrote: > > Hi Marius, > > AFAICS, what you describe below is exactly my @ServiceUser annotation, just >

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Hi Marius, AFAICS, what you describe below is exactly my @ServiceUser annotation, just different names and a different syntax for the ACLs :) Cheers, Alex On 08.12.2015, at 08:09, Marius Petria wrote: > I do not have a precise use case right now other than obtaining a “content > access

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Hi all, I think the current proposal makes sense and deals with the deployment concerns of service users. Would it make sense to express also the development requirements for services? I know that has been discussed over and over again but I wonder if instead of choosing one variant over

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Hi, On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Marius Petria wrote: > ...2. Development definition of services and their requirements (defined by a > developer) > - this a a bundle concern and is a definition of services (not of > users) and their needs > - it does not

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

On 12/8/15, 4:16 PM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: >The require method throws an Exception if the requested permissions >are not granted. > >Using this in a bundle Activator or in a component's activate() method >causes those activations to fail if permissions are

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Hi, On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > ...do we have a solution now on how to > define the service user and ACLs in the provisioning model?... I'm hoping to find time to work on this soon, for now I had a look at the ideas in JCRVLT-61 and chatted

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

This thread started two weeks ago, do we have a solution now on how to define the service user and ACLs in the provisioning model? Without this we shouldn't change our code and switch. Regards Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland cziege...@apache.org

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > ...Keeping it separate from the beginning is the clearest way and works in > all cases... I agree as long as that separation does not complicate things more than strictly needed - provisioning model sounds good,

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Am 04.11.15 um 19:17 schrieb Robert Munteanu: > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:51 +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> Am 04.11.15 um 17:26 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >>> wrote: ...Antonio recently created a bunch of

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Am 05.11.15 um 09:41 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> ...I personally would prefer having everything in the provisioning model >> instead of "hiding" it in bundles - no matter how it really ends up in >> the runtime...

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > ...I personally would prefer having everything in the provisioning model > instead of "hiding" it in bundles - no matter how it really ends up in > the runtime... That would work but for testing I think we also need

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Am 05.11.15 um 09:39 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> ...I suggest we create for each feature a separate bundle with the user >> definition and the ACLs. The stuff gets then installed - like any other >>

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Hi, On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > ...I suggest we create for each feature a separate bundle with the user > definition and the ACLs. The stuff gets then installed - like any other > content - through the contentloader So taking SLING-5227 as

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > ...Antonio recently created a bunch of "Remove loginAdministrative() > usage" tickets for several of our components (SLING-5227 for example) This also means backward compatibility issues, as the modified

Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Hi, Antonio recently created a bunch of "Remove loginAdministrative() usage" tickets for several of our components (SLING-5227 for example). While replacing the login calls is easy, I'm wondering how to test these changes. Do we have a simple mechanism for creating service users in integration

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

hi Betrand, thanks a lot for starting the email thread for this topic. I am really keen on try to be as much constant as possible in the various areas where the loginAdministrative should be replaced whit regards to: - user creation - ace handling - testability As this is a green field for

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

Am 04.11.15 um 17:26 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> ...Antonio recently created a bunch of "Remove loginAdministrative() >> usage" tickets for several of our components (SLING-5227 for example) > > This

Re: Removing loginAdministrative, how to test that, and service username conventions

On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:51 +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Am 04.11.15 um 17:26 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > > wrote: > > > ...Antonio recently created a bunch of "Remove > > > loginAdministrative() > > > usage"