On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Mike Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm -1. the permissions stuff is part of the auth app. It should dilute the > models stuff. I'm sure theres a way using the generic relationship stuff to > do a reverse relationship variable on whatever models you wish. But adding > this to _meta is IMO not the way to go.
To be fair, lots of things are added into _meta as part of the class construction phase. Meta.permissions exists as an extension point for custom permissions, but models have these odd _meta.get_add_permission() methods hanging off of them. It seems to me that it'd be useful to have one place where all permissions existed. Right now, the stock permissions are hard-coded in several places, most notably in auth._get_all_permissions and Options.get_*_permissions. I understand this is a backwards-incompatible change, but the _meta.permissions as-is seems odd. Not the end of the world either way; we were just hoping not to make another copy (or reach from db.models into contrib.auth) to fix a bug (specifically #8060). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
