Hi Georg, On 11.05.16 09:30, Georg Kallidis wrote: > (2) When looking a little deeper into how actually things are to be > implemented, some questions arise, e.g. how are the security services > considered to be used? For example there exists a class in Turbine called > org.apache.turbine.services.security.DefaultSecurityService > and another class in Fulcrum Security > org.apache.fulcrum.security.BaseSecurityService > and furthermore a (deprecated?) Turbine Adapters in Fulcrum Security > org.apache.fulcrum.security.adapter.turbine.SecurityServiceAdapter > > > Which of them is needed in which case (or could be substituted), which are > deprecated?
I'm currently trying to port an old web application of mine to Turbine 4 and Torque 4(.1-SNAPSHOT). I want to find out by myself how the handling of the new features actually works. When I'm done, I think we'll have a working blueprint for the archetype because the application will be using fulcrum-security-torque as a security service. > May be the easiest to answer is, when starting a brand-new Turbine project > using Torque what is the way to go. The new Fulcrum Security Torque > persistence managers seem to be the candidate in the first place or not? Yes, obviously. However a lot has changed and we need to make sure that the Lego bricks of Turbine and Torque fit together as they used to. I stumbled across several Torque issues, for example. If you have a similar application at hand, I'd suggest to try it yourself and see if you run against any obstacles and then discuss your findings here. I, for one, still find the handling of PipelineData cumbersome. I don't want to leave it at this when going to 4.0 final. However, I don't have any good idea how to resolve this right now. Bye, Thomas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@turbine.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@turbine.apache.org
