Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On 7/4/01 4:27 PM, "Martin Poeschl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/4/01 4:03 PM, "Martin Poeschl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> i would like to move the generation of the om/peer classes to tdk to give
> >>> end-users a chance to extend the classes without subclassing anything.
> >>>
> >>> comments?
> >>
> >> Can you be more specific about the changes. I would assume we
> >> keep all the interfaces in the turbine repository than generate
> >> everything in the TDK, yes?
> >
> > yes.
> > only the generated files + files overriding them (e.g. TurbineRole,
> > TurbineRolePeer, ...) will be moved.
>
> Can we get rid of the overriding files too? I think torque would
> need to add something to allow a generated peer/object to implement
> a particular interface as was the case with the TurbineUserPeer. It
> needs to implement UserPeer. That was causing a problem, but that could
> be easily fixed.
may work for group, role, ... where we can move stuff like group.grant(User user,
RoleSet roleSet) to the DBUserManager or SecurityService
i don't think it will work for the user class (e.g.
user.getAccessCounterForSession() )
but adding the ability to implement an interface is a good idea!
> > The DBSecurityService, UserManager, interfaces (User, Role, ...) will stay in
> > the turbine repository.
> >
> > to extend TurbineUser you only have to extend turbine-schema.xml, but if
> > generated classes are included in turbine.jar you have to rebuild turbine.
>
> Yes, what we have is not optimal but definitely a step in the right
> direction :-)
>
> I would say that we could hide most of the turbine-schema.xml file
> and have a single file for the user implementation and then use the
> include syntax to pull in the fragment that contains the user definition.
> Than people can't mess up anything by mistake, and the rest of the schema
> is out of sight, out of mind. I can't remember what the syntax is for
> including a fragment.
hmmm ... maybe someone wants to extend role ...
>
>
> > if we move the generated classes to tdk, users are able to extend e.g.
> > TurbineUser without recompiling turbine.
>
> Yes, that's what we want ideally. Cool!
>
other things on my list are:
* remove blobs (they where never used for group, role, ...
* rename GROUP to something different (REALM was proposed some time ago)
* we talked about adding a user-attributes table (so we can get rif of perm
storage)
martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
