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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am in favor of #1 to prevent yak shaving. >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bill Farner <[email protected] >> <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 <[email protected] >> <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 >> > >> > >>
