There is no problem using the word Group for the classname. So I think we
should use it. It fits in nicely with with Role and Permission where we
have made concessions on the table names. If we go this way it is not as
important what the table name is. Though we used UserRole and now that does
not quite fit as well and I never really liked that name either. So I would
prefer not to create another one that is similar.
If we are agreeing that the object is called Group, I am willing to let the
table name slide. If we would like to keep similar names, my opposition to
UserGroup grows.
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel L. Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Turbine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: SecurityService
> Jon Stevens wrote:
> >
> > on 9/14/2000 5:42 PM, "Daniel L. Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> So, what does the database schema look like? "group" is a reserved
keyword.
> > >
> > > It's implementation independant.
> >
> > huh? what does that mean in this context?
>
> I mean that it's not always hooked to a SQL database.
> --
>
> Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://collab.net/ | open source | do the right thing
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
