Hey Jörg, Alexander, Maybe it's just me, but for me the method works (on an AEM 6.3) without putting any impersonators on any user, thats why I of course mentioned the method, else it wouldn't have answered the question:
def session = slingRepository.impersonateFromService("my-service", new
SimpleCredentials("my-user", "".toCharArray()), (String)null);
Maybe this is a security flaw :)? The reason I use it like this is because I
also found that AEM itself uses this method to modify pages in name of users in
workflows / jobs...
Greets,
Roy
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 00:25, Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> I had the same question previously. It is not very feasible to configure a
> service user as a delegate on each individual human user. Especially when
> these human users are constantly added or removed.
>
> This is a question for Oak, I believe.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
>> On 07.02.2018, at 14:03, Jörg Hoh <jhoh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Roy,
>>
>> that's indeed good news, as it seems to solve the impersonation usecase. On
>> the other hand the javadoc is quite clear, that the requirements of the
>> impersonation process itself come from the underlying repository. I
>> typically use Oak and the Oak documentation at [1] says that with the
>> DefaultLoginModule it still requires some kind of prerequisits
>> ("Impersonation another user will only succeed if the impersonated user is
>> valid (i.e. exists and is not disabled) *and* the the user associated with
>> the editing session is allowed to impersonate this user.").
>>
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/security/authentication/default.html#impersonation
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-02-07 22:50 GMT+01:00 Roy Teeuwen <r...@teeuwen.be>:
>>
>>> Hey Andres,
>>>
>>> We had a similar use case to do impersonation, there is another method for
>>> that now:
>>>
>>> https://sling.apache.org/apidocs/sling10/org/apache/
>>> sling/jcr/api/SlingRepository.html#impersonateFromService-
>>> java.lang.String-javax.jcr.Credentials-java.lang.String-
>>>
>>> Greets,
>>> Roy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Feb 2018, at 20:49, Andres Bott <cont...@andresbott.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe a solution would be
>>> - deprecate / remove the method ( to avoid old code to run as admin)
>>> - rename the class / method and add an info to the log
>>>
>>> in this way we make sure that old code gets migrated to service users, and
>>> the places where it really makes sense to use admin user, the developer
>>> should be aware of it.
>>>
>>> Andres
>>>
>>>
>>> El 2018-02-06 14:09, Bertrand Delacretaz escribió:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Jörg Hoh <jhoh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...Long story short: Is the loginAdministrative() method planned to be
>>> removed? If yes, we should clearly give best practices and document how it
>>> can be replaced even in the non-trivial cases. If it's going to stay, we
>>> should remove the deprecation warning....
>>>
>>> I think we need to keep warnings that loginAdmin should be used as
>>> sparingly as possible.
>>> And probably provide some examples where it does make sense to use it.
>>> But deprecation might not be the correct term, as you indicate.
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Jörg Hoh,
>>
>> http://cqdump.wordpress.com
>> Twitter: @joerghoh
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
