>
> 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
>
+1
> Personally I prefer "user" over "visitor" and changing the table name to
> User to match the object.
Jon has already vetoed.
>
> 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.
>
-0
This is fine with me as long as it does not make building Turbine difficult
on systems we would like to support. For example, Jikes (at least 1.06)
could not compile 2 classes in separate packages that contain references to
each other. I revert to using javac, but this can be annoying. Hopefully
the latest jikes can handle this situation. So I am not vetoing this better
package structure, but just asking is it worth it for a just a couple
classes.
> > Now, even more thinking, I propose to rename "LogonFailedException" to
be
> > "LoginFailedException" to be more consistent with the "Login" screen and
> > action names.
>
> +1
+1 from me.
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
