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
