"julien(a)jboss.com" wrote : in that case it would be wiser if we only go for what was the *initial* requirement that started this thread : something that provides ACL based authorization. | | we leave the identity part out of it, if it does not fit all. | | "tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : "mark.proctor(a)jboss.com" wrote : Portal already has a use case driven Identity component, so Julian's requirements and code should be taken into account. | | | | the current layering of the portal identity component is a no go for jbpm. | | | | Julien, correct me if I'm wrong. | | | | The problem is not in the model of the data. I think we can easily find a common datamodel. The problem is in the pluggability layer of the portal component. | | | | ... | | | | | At a minimum, we should have a common DB schema for our identity data. Also I think that we should be able to leverage a common set of classes + hibernate mappings that accommodate for the persistence to that database schema. | | 1) Our data models for identity are almost... well... identical :-) | 2) We both have a configuration in which we use hibernate to go to a relational DB | | That is what we definitely should try to do together. | | What we don't want to reuse from each other are the interfaces. Your pluggability interfaces are too far from mine and vice versa. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4098354#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...