> Below it is as the first case. I'm open to have it as the second case.
Give
> me input please.
>
> I'm also suggesting moving the OM specific stuff out of the db package and
> into the OM package. OM is essentially our first pass at what will
> eventually just be OPaL based, but isn't quite there yet until OPaL is
> finished. I'm also suggesting renaming the "db" package to "dbpool" to be
> more specific.
>
> org.apache.turbine.om
> BaseObject.java
> BasePeer.java
<snip>
> org.apache.turbine.om.user
> TurbineUser.java
> User.java
> UserFactory.java
> org.apache.turbine.om.user.peer
> TurbineUserPeer.java
> VisitorRolePeer.java
> org.apache.turbine.om.security
> AccessControlBuilder.java
> AccessControlList.java
> DefaultAccessControl.java
> LoginFailedException.java (Renamed from LogonFailedException.java)
> Permission.java
> PermissionSet.java
> Role.java
> RoleSet.java
> org.apache.turbine.om.security.peer
> RolePermissionPeer.java
> PermissionPeer.java
> RolePeer.java
> org.apache.turbine.util.dbpool (Renamed from org.apache.turbine.util.db)
>
ColumnMap.java
DatabaseMap.java
DatabaseMapBuilder.java
LargeSelect.java
Query.java
SQLExpression.java
TableMap.java
I would leave these in a package called db, I guess they don't really belong
in a package called dbpool. I'm not sure they really belong in the om
package. Maybe util.db and util.dbpool can exist?
John
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
