On 1/24/02 10:48 AM, "Gonzalo A. Diethelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have made a branch called "rundata_security_changes" where I am going to >> start the RunData changes. Gonzalo and Dan, this is where we will >> work until >> the default security implementation works with our new plan. > > Got it, compiled it, ready to start working on it... > > By the way, update-jars is SO WONDERFUL! > >> So I'll make the RunData changes and then you two (Gonzalo and >> Dan) can take a bit of time to work out exactly what you think is best. > > Ok. Are we still waiting on your writeup regarding the security > model, or should we start on our own? I'll post a little blurb about where I think you should hook into the pipeline. I also think the interfaces should be empty at first and that we should have several different implementations before we try to determine anything that's common: possibly a simple properties file, rbac, default turbine implementation. If you come to IRC we can probably hash out the detail. I'm still not feeling 100% and I have to go to NYC in a couple of days so I'm trying to take it easy. > >> I was chatting with Jeff yesterday and I think the next thing to >> tackle on a >> first pass is development methodology. The CVS model of the TDK >> works pretty >> much like Scarab but I would like to clean up the torque stuff, add some >> cactus testing for the client side and introduce some continuous >> integration >> techniques using Maven. > > I think automated, unsupervised unit tests are a very good approach. > >> 2) Will allow the TDK to work with an already installed version >> of a servlet container > >> From all the postings on the list, it seems this would be good. > >> Jason van Zyl > -- jvz. Jason van Zyl http://tambora.zenplex.org http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria http://jakarta.apache.org/commons -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
