Ronald Wildenberg wrote: > > > > > > Why don't you simply implement check? The UserContext is an argument > > > > then? I mean, why are you calling the security methods yourself in > the > > > first place? Perhaps I don't quite understand your problem.... > > > > I do implement check(), but it's impossible to call it from > > any other place than the classes inside the > > org.mmbase.bridge.implementation package. These classes are > > the only ones that have access to the package-protected > > method BasicUser.getUserContext. > > Is it an idea to make BasicUser.getUserContext() public? Why is it > package-protected in the first place?
Because it does not belong to the interface. I'd rather see that the UserContext of security implements the bridge's User interface. BasicCLoud can then simply return the real security object in its implementation of getUser(). If really necessary, you can cast it then to you specific implementation's class. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US
