Jon Stevens wrote:
> #3. The goal is to eventually move all the user/role/permission/group stuff
> to using Torque instead of the currently hand coded BO's and peers (they
> were done long before Torque existed). So, that is why I'm saying that
> making/using the interface isn't really needed at this point in time. If you
> would like to work on that part of things, that would be great as well. Just
> make sure to ensure 100% backward compatibility through the use of
> deprecation. If you don't get to it, I will in the next few weeks. I think
> it is a must have before release. Something about eating our own dog food.
> :-)
sounds like a job for me ;-)
i generated the classes with torque ...
some the method names are different (e.g. getCreateDate() -> getCreated() )
should i change the interface (and also the LDAP classes)?
or add the methods to match the interface?
i think it is no good idea to edit the BaseXyz classes (add the license, ...)
do we need them in cvs??
or should they be regenerated at build time?
martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
