#9347: registration policy ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ Reporter: dokter | Owner: dokter Type: PLIP | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: 4.0 Component: Unknown | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Comment(by erikrose): As I said on #9310, I like the idea. * We should use the existing workflow framework rather than inventing something new. * We have member data spread all over the place at the moment. Showing a good understanding of which way we're moving and moving with it would increase the chances of me voting yes on the implementation. * I'd like to see the config UI end up in the same configlet as, say, the "Let members choose their own passwords" setting and other member-centric things. * It's worth considering whether it makes sense to represent the pending users as full-fledged content objects. Consider, it, but don't consider it too hard; we almost certainly wouldn't want to suddenly make 50,000 content objects in an LDAP situation, for instance. The objects could be deleted upon approval, but that would be a surprising behavior compared with what usually happens when content is approved or published. Assuming the above, FWT vote +1. -- Ticket URL: <http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9347#comment:2> Plone <http://plone.org> Plone Content Management System
_______________________________________________ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories