Am 26.02.15 um 01:53 schrieb Marius Petria: > >>> >> If the sub service name is not set, the service reg property is not set, >> the >> target is then target="(!(subServiceName=*))" > > > Carsten, you are suggesting that is mapping.subServiceName == null then I > should not put the property in the service reg. I added a property with > empty string but I can do it as you suggest and drop the property > altogether if it is null.
I think that's slightly nicer - but I guess either way works. > > On a slightly related topic, looking more closely to the > ServiceUserMapperImpl I see that there are several levels of fallback for > service user resolution (fallback to bundle default, or to global > default). While this offers a lot of flexibility, to me it feels a bit > strange in the context of a security feature. If defaults are set, it can > happen (especially at startup) that code is executed using different > serviceUsers, e.g. a component can execute using the bundle default or > global default until its specific subService is available, and it can be > easily imagined how this can cause subtle errors. > Right, I guess we have not thought about it initially and simply assumed that all users are properly setup anyway. I wouldn't mind removing the fallbacks - although that is an incompatible change. But let's open an issue for that. For this issue, I haven't seen any strong objection, so let's move on and get it done. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland [email protected]
