If we go this route, I'll do the new Jetspeed security. - Glenn -------------------------------------------- Glenn R. Golden, Systems Research Programmer University of Michigan School of Information [EMAIL PROTECTED] 734-615-1419 http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~ggolden/ --------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 1:59 PM > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > Subject: RE: Using current Torque with Jetspeed - a few problems... > > > Chris, > > > > > I solved (?) this by wrapping the Torque pool so that is > > looked like the Turbine Pool Service. I had to mess around > > adding a couple of wrapper classes - for DB/DBConnection - as > > they are different types between Turbine and Torque. > > This is an amazing amount of crap to go thru, and Im sorry > Chris that you got stuck with it. I thought maybe this time > upgrading the Turbine jar would be simple and painless. > Right. Im really sick of this lack of planning and > consideration for their user base. Turbine-2 is a mess. I > vote that we work towards completely removing Torque/Peers > from Jetspeed permanently. This will involve: > > 1) creating a new Jetspeed DB Service (Im working on that now > - its based on OJB an a thin layer) > http://sourceforge.net/projects/objectbridge > 2) rewriting the DB PSML to use this service > 3) creating a new Security Model and dumping the old Turbine > security model > > > David > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:jetspeed-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
