on 2/10/00 10:19 AM, Frank Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that as Turbine grows and incorporates more services and
> functionality there will be a need for us to create more "business" or
> "system" type objects and have a coherent object model. So I propose the
> following packages where "om" is object model:
>
> org.apache.turbine.om.user
> org.apache.turbine.om.security
That is fine.
> Personally I prefer "user" over "visitor" and changing the table name to
> User to match the object.
You can't use the table name of "user" because it is a reserved word in most
databases, including Oracle. This is why we (the pilgrims and i) invented
"visitor".
> Also, for one of our projects we had a dir like
> org.apache.turbine.om.user.peer to separate the database/non-business
> classes from the objects themselves. The Peers and Factory classes would go
> in here.
that is great. +1
> Now that I'm thinking of it the stuff in modules (Action, Screen, Layout,
> etc) are also "system" objects but I think those are fine in that package.
Yea, I would rather not move those.
-jon
--
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
