Thanks, Renan! Let's go ahead with the scoped config in your patch. -=Bill
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Renan DelValle <rdelv...@binghamton.edu> wrote: > No problem Bill. > > +1 to #1 to avoid yak shaving from me as well. > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> > wrote: > > +1 to #1 for the short term, but I'd like us to assess #3 in the long > term. > > > > On Thursday, July 2, 2015, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I am in favor of #1 to prevent yak shaving. > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org > >> <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for starting this discussion, Renan! > >> > > >> > I think it's clear that the feature you're adding calls for a > >> configuration > >> > file. I'm realizing now that we do have some precedent for > configuration > >> > files with the recently-introduced security controls [1]. In that > case > >> the > >> > sane path was obvious since we pass the configuration file in an > >> > established format to third-party code (Apache Shiro). > >> > > >> > I see several paths ahead: > >> > > >> > 1.) start with individual feature-oriented configuration files and > >> > re-assess down the road > >> > > >> > 2.) establish a convention for a single global configuration file > >> > > >> > 3.) (2) and migrate command line arguments to a configuration file > >> > > >> > My personal preference is (1), so as to not force Renan to start a yak > >> > shave, and because i think willingness to change things down the road > is > >> > important. > >> > > >> > I include (3) because people have inquired about that in the past. > >> > > >> > Does anyone have a preference which path we take? Are there other > >> options > >> > i'm not thinking about? > >> > > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/aurora/blob/master/docs/security.md#http-spnego-authentication-kerberos > >> > > >> > -=Bill > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Renan DelValle < > rdelv...@binghamton.edu > >> <javascript:;>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I'm currently working on bringing custom executor support to Aurora > >> > > (AURORA-1288). As development and discussions about the most > adequate > >> > > solution to this problem have moved along, I've reached a crossroad > >> > > where I need the community's input on the implementation path this > >> > > feature will take. > >> > > > >> > > Right now, after evaluating other options, it seems that the safest > >> > > and most flexible way to providing users the ability to configure > >> > > their own custom executor may be to use a configuration file. > >> > > > >> > > However, as there is no previous use of a config file (everything > has > >> > > been done through command line up until now), a discussion is > >> > > necessary about this possible shift in paradigm due to the fact > that, > >> > > if this route is taken, it will set a precedent for Aurora. > >> > > > >> > > As Bill Farner said in his comment on Jira, all in all, this is > >> > > discussion should be about how should approach this potential > paradigm > >> > > shift. > >> > > > >> > > -Renan > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Zameer Manji > >> > > >> > > >> >
