Hi, That's fine and we can together have a look at better implementation options after the big merge.
Thanks. On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi gang, > > For the weekend I'm going to get this BB branch back in order with all our > changes to finally cleanup the protocol-ldap module, and remove JNDI from > the picture (making JNDI an optional adapter that wraps the > DirectoryService). > > I just started trying to fix the trigger and SP code but these recent > changes have it way bent out of shape. However, I now see how we can make > this subsystem much better thanks to the removal of JNDI and the presence of > OperationContexts. I got stuck trying to modify the trigger specification > to pass in a CoreSession instead of a JNDI context. However, now I am > thinking of passing in the OperationContext that raised the trigger is the > best option. Perhaps both may be required even though the > OperationContext.getSession() method returns the session of the user > triggering the invocation. > > I say both because even though the OperationContext holds a referrence to > the CoreSession associated with the user triggering the SP invocation, we > may need to execute the SP with the permissions of the owner. In this case, > another CoreSession object may need to be passed in as an argument to be > used as the session to perform operations with. Some thought may be > required here but it's a heck of a lot easier than when we dealt with JNDI. > > Anyways, I'm just going to forgo messing with this until later when we can > correctly figure out what we're going to do with triggers and SPs. > > Thanks, > Alex > > -- Ersin Er http://www.ersin-er.name
