Hi CP, > I posted a question on this newsgroup recently > (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08 961.html) > about _replacing_ the turbine_* tables with our own (we already have an > existing application with existing database tables + data, that is why > we are not using the turbine_* tables).
I don't want to replace the existing turbine_* tables. (I want to use it for both authentication and authorization.) I rather want to extend its functionality using app-tables. The idea is to modify the turbine_* tables manually. > I have achieved this, but not without compromises. One of the > compromise is that we are only using Turbine's security system for > authentication and when we need to do authorisation we use our own > security model. In addition the replacement Turbine security classes is > read-only, so as soon as you try to do any modification to the > underlying system via Turbine's bundled DBSecurityService an exception > will be thrown. I see. But it is possible to modify the turbine_* tables by just using its corresponding Peers, isn't it? If this is not possible, I am going to the wrong direction right now and need to switch to another solution. Q: Did you make efforts to switch to the decoupled Fulcrum Turbine-Service, or do you use the old model? Regards Marc -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
