On 6/11/01 10:37 PM, "Martin Poeschl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i really like the concepts of the turbine-security system, but i don't like
> the
> current implementation
>
> 1.) we should eat our own dogfood - so the om/peer classes for the
> security-system
> should be generated by torque
+1
> 2.) jason said he would like to move the classes to the apps - i'm not sure
> about this
Move the classes to the apps? I don't understand.
> - if we move the classes out of turbine - what happens with the ldap
> implementation?
> - i would prefer to keep the basic-implementation within turbine and add
> functionality
to the tdk which makes it easy to use your own user-table
I don't think we disagree here.
> 3.) the current classes don't match classes generated with torque (e.g. there
> is
>
> TurbineUserPeer.USERNAME, but in the schema it is TURBINE_USER.LOGIN_NAME,
> TurbineUserPeer.getTableName() - torque generates
> TurbineUserMapBuilder.getTable() ....)
>
> => so i would like to generate the classes with torque, and add functionality
> to
> tdk
>
>
> i know the security system will change for turbine 2.2, but i can do my
> changes
> compatible to the
> current code so they can be added to turbine 2.1.1 (do we plan to have a 2.1.1
> release??)
I think we will have several 2.1.x releases. It will give us the time
to deprecate things and plan 2.2 properly.
> martin
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
jvz.
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
