> The following files are in the wrong packages in my opinion:
>
> org.apache.turbine.util.TurbineUser.java
> org.apache.turbine.util.TurbineUserPeer.java
> org.apache.turbine.util.User.java
> org.apache.turbine.util.access.UserFactory.java
> org.apache.turbine.util.access.VisitorRolePeer.java
>
> I propose that we make a new package in the
> org.apache.turbine.util package
> and call it "user" or "visitor" (please vote) and then place the
> above files
> into that package.
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
Personally I prefer "user" over "visitor" and changing the table name to
User to match the object.
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.
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.
> In fact, after thinking about this further, I think that we should rename
> the "access" package to "security" since that is more of what the files
> (roles/permissions/ACL/logonfailedexception) in there are providing.
see above
> Now, even more thinking, I propose to rename "LogonFailedException" to be
> "LoginFailedException" to be more consistent with the "Login" screen and
> action names.
+1
What do you think?
Frank
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
