David, I just started looking at the security stuff in depth. Right now I'm just starting to look PortalAuthentication. The thing I immediately noticed is how generic the code in TurbineAuthentication. In fact, I think the logic could be moved to a BaseAuthentication class were others could benefit from extending it into custom classes. I have basically copied the whole thing verbatim into my OJBAuthentication class.
Any thoughts? Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:17 AM > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > Subject: RE: OJB based security service, any thoughts? > > > > > Do you mean breaking user-apps based on Jetspeed or the > > actual base Jetspeed itself? I thought the abstraction > > through the new security implementation prevented just this > > type of situation. > > > > Could we offer the option of an OJB-based impl. along side > > the Torque one? Maybe, get people used to the OJB stuff > > early-on by choice and not by force. We could also add an > > ant task to build a .war with OJB support and leave the > > default war option to Torque. > > Sorry, I misunderstood. > +1 on an optional OJB object model. > That would give people a chance to compare OJB with Torque. > > > BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically > stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do > not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the > BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will > signify your consent to this. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
