Previously Mike Orr wrote: > AuthKit's author James Gardner says the architecture is sound, the > outstanding bugs have been fixed, and the two substantial chapters in > the Pylons Book space on the wiki have been audited for Pylons 0.9.6. > Against this are 4-5 people on IRC and this list who have had bad > experiences with AuthKit and think it should be thrown into the ocean. > Their argument seems to be not that it doesn't work (the previous > bugs have been fixed), but that you can write your own authentication > in the time it takes to learn it.
There is an important lesson here: a very important, if not the most important, factor for adaption of a tool such as AuthKit is the quality of its documentation and how easy it is for complete newcomers to start using it. I consider myself a reasonably experienced programmer and I found myself overwhelmed by the complexity of the AuthKit documentation and setup. If there was a single tutorial that said 'do A and B and voila! your app is now protected' AuthKit would probably be much more accepted. Instead there are two pages in the pylons book that try to cover all of AuthKit, which means they introduce so much complexity that my first response was 'my needs are very simple, I will look elsewhere'. After actually using AuthKit since there were no good alternatives at the time and I did not want to bother to write my own thing I still think that. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
