My solution is different from yours. I have a 'subscriber' table, with 30 or so LOB columns, which is bound to TURBINE_USER via a FK. My solution in this case was to leave the TURBINE_USER table in place and join.
>From what I understand, your goal is to have only one table, the WEBAPP_USER table, which is already existing. Why not just stay with the default TURBINE_USER schema, and map to the different table name via the security-schema.xml. For the Jetspeed columns that aren't in WEBAPP_USER, consider adding them, or if thats not possible, just no-op the accessors in your extended om > -----Original Message----- > From: Aur�lien Pernoud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:53 AM > To: 'Jetspeed Users List' > Subject: RE: Trying not to use the default TURBINE_USER table in > database > > > Hmmm since you have the solution to my problem... > In fact I already have some of the properties of the > "TURBINE_USER", such as > login/pwd, in another table named "WEBAPP_USER" : > > Equivalence > | > TURBINE_USER | WEBAPP_USER > ---------------|-------------- > LOGIN_NAME | ID > PASSWORD_VALUE | PWD > > But my WEBAPP_USER table doesn't have any of the columns of the > TURBINE_USER > one. I just want to have a common login/pass for my two webapps, so that I > don't have to create user twice. What's the simple way ? > > > De : David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > How different is your schema from the original TURBINE table? > > If your table is entirely different, you may want to just > > relate the two > > tables and leave the default Turbine security in place: > > > > <foreign-key foreignTable="TURBINE_USER" onDelete="cascade"> > > <reference local="SUBSCRIBER_ID" foreign="USER_ID"/> > > </foreign-key> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[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]>
