I have modified the TURBINE_USER table by adding additional attributes and then had torque create a new object model for the table. Is it necessary to configure the Security service (and my new classes) to use the newly created user class and user peer? I believe it is possible that the extra attributes are irrelevant to the Security service and thus the change may not be necessary. I am using TDK 2.1. If the change is not required, please ignore part 2 below, as it addresses a problem I encountered while trying to make the Security service change. Although, the problem below may still need to be addressed within Torque. The documentation within TurbineResources.properties states that I must implement the org.appache.turbine.om.security.peer.UserPeer interface for the services.SecurityService.userPeer.class property. While changing my classes to implement the required Interfaces, I ran into a problem that does not appear to have a way for me to fix it without tampering with the Torque generated classes. The trouble is that the UserPeer interface has a definition for USER_ID that also exists within my application's BaseTurbineUserPeer class. In addition, I have a foriegn key relationship which generates code within a 3rd Peer class that joins against the TURBINE_USER.USER_ID column and results in the following compilation error. BTW, only TurbineUserPeer implements the UserPeer Interface. [javac] /Users/dbbrown/dev/java/workarea/tdk/webapps/timecard/WEB-INF/src/java/com/foundryinc/webapps/timecard/om/BaseTimesheetPeer.java:467: reference to USER_ID is ambiguous, both variable USER_ID in com.foundryinc.webapps.timecard.om.BaseTurbineUserPeer and variable USER_ID in org.apache.turbine.om.security.peer.UserPeer match [javac] TurbineUserPeer.USER_ID); What is the recommended approach to solving this problem? Is it a bug within Torque? Thanks, - Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
