> It might be posible to define a standard mechanism, maybe by writing > some Abstract Store class for a partial or "transparent" store, where a > store that does not handle an operation it delegates to the parent > store. For example, you mount a standard store on /, Tx or JDBC, and
> then you mount the LDAP store on /users and /roles. If the LDAP store > doesn't handle a given operation, like creating arbitrary properties, it > delegates to the root store. I was thinking of something along those lines. Having a dual-mode Store that put some things in LDAP and some things in a filesystem/database. I hadn't thought of passing the additional properties up to a higher-scoped Store. That makes sense. I'm not sure how that would play out with the current API, and I can see the potential for concurrency issues (deleting a user in LDAP but still having properties in the parent store). I like the idea, though. James Mason Adventist Health Programmer/Analyst 916.783.2576 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
