RE: Need explanation on data model

I don't know the initial intention, but I think it is a good idea, to hide the TurbineSecurityService behind some ScarabUser and ScarabModule.
In this way the concepts of the TurbineSecurityService (with its users, roles and groups) do not leak into Scarabs domain model.
It also may be easier to change the authorization and authentication provider in the future.
Ah, and I remember that the TurbineSecurityService was a cause for performance issues, because it executed a lot of db-queries over and over again. This issues where solved by caching the results of the methods of TurbineSecurityService.

What are the incompatibilities, you have found?

Ronny

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrey Larionov [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Need explanation on data model

As i understand current implementation of User OM is base for some
abstraction. It's look like unfinished experiment by moving from
TurbineSecurityService to fulcrum security.
I think we should make decision which way should be used, because now
i'm porting Scarab to T2.4 and try to move scarab security layer on
top of TurbineSecurityService, but i'ts incompatible with current
realization. Should i continue or revert?

Could anybody describe pros and cons of both solutions?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]