Hi Thomas,
thanks for the details and hints. Yes, some reflection would be
necessary.
I think at the moment about extending AbstractEntityManager with a
"peerClass" attribute/child providing (optionally) a (Non-Base-)PeerImpl
class. The code would be very similar to the existing code for
"className", except that a single "peerInstance" method in the API
manager class is sufficient, if I use some kind of generic marker
interface (instantiating could be done only once may be). I would not
prefer another layer in the API/Fulcrum Torque component at the moment.
Most of the TorqueTurbine..ManagerImpl classes then could use this
method. The TorqueAbstractTurbine .. classes would remain untouched.
This would be of some help and may be sufficient. This breaks the
encapsulation a little bit up, but we have some more decoupling.
As Turbine uses Torque-ORM extensively, I think it is justified to have
some more considerations concering Torque integration.
I´ll check it in in the next days ..
Best regards, Georg
Von: Thomas Vandahl <[email protected]>
An: Turbine Developers List <[email protected]>,
Datum: 15.02.2014 17:55
Betreff: Re: fulcrum security torque and turbine v4-m2
Hi Georg,
On 11.02.14 09:13, Georg Kallidis wrote:
> Only the bases classes could be apparently generated with the Torque 4
> plugin (?) (BTW In Turbine trunk Torque 3.3 is still present in the
> pom.xml).
Yes. This is necessary as long as the old scheduler is still there.
The extension / data object classes are in in the java folder
> of Fulcrum Security Torque component, but what, if I need to extend
the
> DO classes? I probably would use the Torque ant tools, which could
> generate all needed classes (may be together with other non Turbine
> classes) and use another package taking fulcrum-turbine-schema.xml
(copy
> and paste it into my schema). But at this moment I think a
configuration
> option is missing, as the classes in
> org.apache.fulcrum.security.torque.turbine depend on the DO classes in
> package org.apache.fulcrum.security.torque.om. Shouldn´t this be
> configurable (at own risk, of course)? I could else not figure out,
how
> I could use this Fulcrum component for an existing Turbine webapp.
The classes generated by Torque refer to the "default" database which
can be mapped to any other database you use with Torque.
>
> May be I try to say, what I think would be best (we know often only
the
> second best is achieved ;-):
>
> - build the OR-Mapping classes with or near to other non Turbine
classes
> (as I will probably have other tables in my database) from another
> schema having it in one place.
>
> - allow for extending DO classes (as they are just skeletons)
>
> - allow for another package in Fulcrum Security Troque component.
In principle, the object classes used can be configured in the component
configuration. I never tried this, however.
The old Torque Security Service shows what probably needs to be done: It
was a Java reflection battlefield. I tried to make it somewhat simpler.
If you want to take another shot, feel free. I will support you as best
as I can.
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
