On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 16:49 -0400, Thomas G. Willis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Rob Miller <r...@burningman.com> wrote:
> > Thomas G. Willis wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the response Chris,
> >>
> >> This makes perfect sense.  And honestly I'm not married to repoze.who
> >> or repoze.what,  To me it was the best option in pylons which is why I
> >> had it lying around.
> >>
> >> /purge from brain who+what
> >
> > just make sure you don't throw out the baby w/ the bathwater.  repoze.who
> > works well w/ repoze.bfg, other folks (myself included) have used this
> > combination w/o significant problems.  using repoze.what with repoze.bfg,
> > however, is uncharted territory, probably best avoided unless you want to be
> > the one to blaze that trail.
> >
> > -r
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Repoze-dev mailing list
> > Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
> > http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
> >
> 
> Yeah I ended up getting repoze.who working relatively easily so I'm
> going to keep it. The more that I think about it, I'm thinking
> repoze.what is not that useful in a generic form since permissions
> tend to be app specific(probably the same conclusion as others).
> 
> I think that the group/permission providers I wrote could still be
> useful behind an authorization policy though.  So I may give that a
> shot.

If anyone can point me at example code of a bfg app using Repoze.who
with an authentication policy, I would love to see it.

Thanks
Iain



_______________________________________________
Repoze-dev mailing list
Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev

Reply via email to