Jason van Zyl wrote: >On 12/11/01 10:43 AM, "Santiago Gala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Jason van Zyl wrote: >> >>>On 12/11/01 8:58 AM, "Paul Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>>I agree with the general idea of completing 1.3 and starting a 2.0 based >>>>on a new API. >>>> >>>Possibly based on Turbine 3.x? :-) >>> >>I agree, provided that a stable turbine release is scheduled. We have >>had to deal with a lot of problems because of APIs moving around. >> > >What problems have you had since the release of 2.1? I think that a lot of >your problems are self inflicted. > Lately things are rather smooth :-) But I don't want to do a premature migration and open the can of worms again...
> >>We >>have chosen to follow a more stable path as the code base grows, and as >>people starts using it for production systems we need a clean evolution >>path. >> >>BTW, I was discussing with a colleague here and he said that he found >>disgusting the mixture in Turbine API between two separate issues in the >>same service: >> >>- Authentication >>- User Management (The User data) >> >>After a little thought and talk, we agreed. In a lot of cases, >>authentication can be handled by quite separate mechanisms, for instance >>a corporate LDAP or JAAS. While in some projects we *must* use these >>resources, we *cannot* have write access to the corporate repositories, >>thus we need to store User Info in separate places from the one provided >>by the default TurbineSecurity. Which implies we need to fiddle with >>Turbine architecture. >> > >Than you have to look at the proposals for turbine 3 and speak up now. What >you speak of makes sense so make sure you talk about it on the Turbine list. >If you don't participate in the development of turbine 3 (it's still really >in its infancy so you haven't missed anything) and there are things that you >need that don't appear than don't blame the turbine developers. > I'll try. I'm overwhelmed, but I will try to look for threads and comment on them. > > >>Do you know how is it evolving in Turbine 3.0? Are there generic >>Persistence Services, that we could use for both PSML and User Data? >> > >Huh? Do you mean can you store user information in the database and in XML, >or in flat files? > > A generic persistence service, that could be used to store both XML documents and java objects (maybe through a mapping like torque, castor, ...) but which could be configured to store the objects either: - in flat files - in databases - in LDAP directories - ... and that is uncoupled from the security service (except maybe through an Id for retrieving the info). Currently, if you migrate the user service to LDAP, the user info will not be written (save is not implemented in the service). Maybe this already exisst, but I'm not aware of it (excuse my ignorance). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
