> From: "Marc Lustig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > the Fulcrum-site says: > "Starting with version 2.2 Turbine will use the decoupled Fulcrum." In which case the fulcrum documentation is incorrect. It should read: "Starting with version 2.2 Turbine will be able to use the decoupled Fulcrum to replace some of the services that are currently coupled to Turbine." > > But, in T2.2b3 TR.props: > services.SecurityService.user.class=org.apache.turbine.om.security.TurbineUs > er > > and not > services.SecurityService.user.class=org.apache.fulcrum.security.impl.db.enti > ty.TurbineUser > > So, irretating enough, at least with respect to the > TurbineUser-Security-class, 2.2 is still using the old model, not the > decoupled Fulcrum. > > Can someone explain to me the difference between those classes: > org.apache.turbine.om.security.TurbineUser > org.apache.fulcrum.security.impl.db.entity.TurbineUser > ? > > I wonder if I can just modify these entries in TR.props to > services.SecurityService.classname=org.apache.fulcrum.security.SecurityServi > ce > services.SecurityService.user.class=org.apache.fulcrum.security.impl.db.enti > ty.TurbineUser You are on the right track. Setting these values is how you tell turbine to use fulcrum instead of the built-in services. > > and then extend org.apache.fulcrum.security.impl.db.entity.TurbineUser to > add functionality specific to my app. Probably something like that, but do check out the SecurityService proposal in the fulcrum cvs proposal directory - I intend evaluating this in the near future with a view to pushing for this code to replace the existing fulcrum SecurityService. > > Is someone out there who has done this? > > > Regards > Marc
Cheers, Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
