Iain Duncan wrote:
> 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.
>>> Repoze-dev mailing list
>> 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
> 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.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
Repoze-dev mailing list