> > I want to extend org.apache.turbine.om.security.TurbineUser to provide > > business logic functionality to my application to use them in Screen > > classes, Action classes, Peer classes. > > > > I adjust TR.props: > > > > services.SecurityService.user.class=de.geoconnect.audiotex.AudiotexUser > > > > Q: Is that all I have to do, or is there something else to do? > > > > JavaDoc/ org.apache.turbine.om.security.TurbineUser says: > > "You are welcome to extend this class if you wish to have custom > > functionality in your user objects (like accessor methods for custom > > attributes). Note* that implementing a different scheme of user > data storage > > involves writing an implementation of UserManager interface. " > > > > Q: What is refered here as "a different scheme of user data storage"? > > The TurbineUser Peer or what? > > > > Q: In what case do I have to write an implementation of UserManager > > interface? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Marc > > Hi Marc, > > I'm afraid you have just grabbed a snake by the tail. From what I > understand, the only people that have successfully extended the > turbine-user > table in turbine 2.2bx have been using the DBSecurity service in fulcrum > rather than the one provided with turbine itself. On top of this I think > the better option may be to utilise the SecurityService proposal code in > fulcrum cvs head from Henning - this seems to add a whole lot of > flexibility > (IIRC Henning was going to make the internal cvs repository (of > the company > he works for) containing additional enhancements to fulcrum available for > read-only access, but I don't think this has happened yet).
Thanks, Scott. Oh boy, is it really that bad? I looked into the Fulcrum SecurityService doc. It uses as standard services.SecurityService.user.class= org.apache.fulcrum.security.impl.db.entity.TurbineUser (instead of org.apache.turbine.om.security.TurbineUser) So what if I simply extend org.apache.fulcrum.security.impl.db.entity.TurbineUser instead of org.apache.turbine.om.security.TurbineUser? Would that work? I don't think I need to change services.SecurityService.userPeer.class= org.apache.fulcrum.security.impl.db.entity.TurbineUserPeer cause I am fine keeping TurbineUser table as basis for the User, and just extend it on table-level. I know using this solution I won't have the comfort of accessing all my user-properties from the object itself. But I can I can live with that and get them from other other Peers (Kunden). ---> The reason why I would like to have a clean User extension is that I like the idea to access abstract business logic directly from the user object, not from a Peer (either TurbineUser or Kunden, my extended user table). like user.goInTheJungleAndGetSomeFood() instead of having calling numerous Peer-methods on a less abstraction-level. Isn't this reasonable? But if this User-extension is too adventurous I think I will forget about it and just go with the simple Peer-methods. Cheers Marc -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
