Rafal Krzewski wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I agree that it makes sense but it may also make people easily forget that
> > some implementation of TurbineSecurity have to treat password fields in
> > a specific way.
> > Now given than Turbine has a DBMS bias, it's just as well to give the most
> > simple and understandable API for DBMS implementation users.
>
> I'm fighting for making Turbine security implementaion independent, but
> few
> developers seem to share my views :-(.
>
Certainly because few developers share your concern (I do. I manage all my
user information on LDAP servers).
Still, you can definitely define a TurbineDBSecurity accessor class that
provide method signatures that only work with DBMS based implementation but
which are more intuitive for these users.
--
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vivendi Universal Networks - Services Manager / Paris
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
