About a month ago I revisited the work I did earlier on extending turbine_user. My goal was to overcome the problem I had identified and documented about 3/4 of the way down the extend-user-howto under the heading "Additional Information (Added 12 Nov 2001)". To summarise, after going through all of the effort to extend turbine_user, the implementation is incomplete because user.save() fails to save any related objects you may have added using the generated user.addXXX() methods.
By making some small changes to torque's Object.vm template it is possible to have the code necessary to save the related objects generated in the OM class for the turbine_user alias. This solution is reasonably small and it works well (I am using it in a production site). The only trouble with this solution is that it seems a bit like a hack because it mixes non-turbine security objects with turbine security objects - you can include the user.save() in a transaction, but the saving of the actual turbine_user record will not be part of the transaction because the turbine db security implementation does not allow for this. Anyway, I have a solution that works. My question is, should I submit a patch to Object.vm that could be considered to be a hack or should I just outline the hack in a patch to extend-user-howto so that interested users can apply the patch themselves? BTW: Anyone that has extended turbine_user will love this change. With it you can use data.getUser() just like any other OM class (after casting it to your alias class). Any thoughts? Scott -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
