Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> on 1/23/01 9:48 AM, "Rafal Krzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, if we are trying to provide convinience methods,
> > setConfirmed(false) could generate the random confirmation code
> > and setConfirmed(true) could set the field to User.CONFIRM_VALUE.
> >
> > if the user doesn't like that, there's always setConfirmed(String)
> >
> > What about that?
>
> That totally works for me. I just wasn't sure if you wanted to make a
> dependency between the TurbineUniqueId Service and the TurbineUser class...
Hey, the confirmation codes must be random. Not neccessarily unique.
It doesn't matter if they 'clash', people just shouldn't be able to
guess them. So a random and convresion int->string with radix 36 will
work great. No dependency needed :-)
Rafal
--
Rafal Krzewski
Senior Internet Developer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+48 22 8534830 http://e-point.pl
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
