Rafal Krzewski wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Having two accessor classes seems like more complexity and confusion
> instead of less :-)
>
Sure, but at least using TurbineDBSecurity, they know what they get...
--
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]
