Hi Cameron, You might have seen that i too have been stuggling under the previous version to extend the User. I had everything working fine until 2.2b1 came about. I found you van at least do without the TurbineUserAdapters now because you can directly access the extended TurbineUsers. That is what i have done at least. I need the Aliased table only for refering to foreignkeys. I know it's not a good solution but it works for me.
I'm not a hunderd percent sure this is the way it was meant to be but it seems to work fine. Just Change everything over to torque where criteria are involved and you seem to be fine. I can't answer your actually question about things being in flux at the moment. Let's see what the creators say :-) Lots of success, Diederik de Groot > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cameron Cole > Sent: donderdag 21 maart 2002 19:26 > To: Turbine Users List > Subject: Extending TurbineUser in TDK 2.2b1 > > > Hello again everyone, > > Previously with version 2.1 I successfully extended TurbineUser but ran > into some difficulty when attempting to add a foreign key to my extended > user so I could place them on teams. I decided to put the project aside > for a bit and return when 2.2b1 came out. Well 2.2b1 has come out > (Congrats btw! :) and I have again started to revisit the problem and > have run into a few interesting issues. TurbineUserPeer extends the > org.apache.turbine.om.peer.BasePeer where as all of my om objects > (including the ExtendedBaseUser) extend the torque.util.BasePeer. As > such when I attempt to compile my ExtendedBasePeer all of the > doSelect(Criteria, DBConnection) methods no longer compile b/c the > turbine BasePeer expects a turbine Criteria and my generated > BaseUserPeer is passing a torque criteria. This is also true of the > retrieveByPK methods. > > I have two main questions: > > 1. Is the user/security system in a state of flux and should I just > holdoff? If so, where can I get more information? (I have read the > archives, but haven't seen any conclusions as yet) > > 2. Is there another/better way I could go about this? If there is a > newer/better way to do this, and someone can kick me in the right > direction I'll try to document my trials and tribulations and see if it > makes a reasonable how-to... (or how-not-to :) I understand from the > archives and current mail threads that the security system is undergoing > review and rewrite, but I don't know where to get more information... > > Thanks, > > -cam. > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
