on 2/5/01 11:59 AM, "Roall Lein-Killi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Norway we are only 4,5 million people, and
> in many projects I would be happy if 1 per 10 000
> were potential users : )
>
> My point here is that it should be up to the users(read developers)
> to decide to use that method or not? Maybe a comment in the javadocs
> could be a more preferred way to prevent "accidents".
>
> - Killi
I wasn't telling you to not implement it, I was telling you that it isn't
necessarily a good idea because you need to think about the case of having
tons and tons of records returned.
The nice thing about Turbine is that it is very extensible. There is no
reason why you can't extend TurbineSecurity and implement this method
yourself. :-)
Or, you could submit a patch and contribute to the ever growing codebase
that we all use and share.
In other words, if something isn't implemented or is missing, then go
implement it. All we can do is hope that you all will contribute your
additions back so that they go into the pool so that we can all take
advantage of the code...
thanks,
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/> | <http://java.apache.org/turbine/>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
