on 5/11/01 9:07 AM, "Turpin, Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if I understand the thread properly, are you proposing to get rid of the
> Group, Role and Permission class interfaces?
No. Just the *Peer interfaces.
> A co-worker and I spent all day yesterday trying to shoehorn the new Torque
> *Group* classes, which we like BTW, into the existing Group interface. Much
> more difficult than we first imagined. I would love to at least redesign the
> Group interface to be more in line with the new OM class, but that seems to
> affect a number of other modules, and we still don't have a good
> understanding of everything that would be touched by this change.
>
> Any guidance will be appreciated.
Yes, it is difficult...that is the problem...and why I'm suggesting that you
let people who are more familiar with the code take care of it...otherwise
you are somewhat on your own.
Also, just so you know, I believe that Group is going to be renamed (in 2.2)
because it is really badly named at this point in time. It isn't a Unix
Group, it is more a role/user/foo mapping where foo could be anything and
currently it is called "Group".
<http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/proposals/security-service.html>
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/ymtd/ymtd.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
