You are creating a model yourself though. You're just saying "don't
use htis model, as it was created automagickally". You can have an
AnonymousUser model (class?) which already exists. You could then edit
it via however you want it to edited (the db is whats important) and
have permissions set
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:59 AM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think being able to specify permissions for the AnonymousUser is
> useful, but hacking this in as a row in the database for User is not
> the right approach.
>
> I'm +1 for the ability to give permissions to anonymous
I think being able to specify permissions for the AnonymousUser is
useful, but hacking this in as a row in the database for User is not
the right approach.
I'm +1 for the ability to give permissions to anonymous users.
On Oct 24, 9:59 pm, "Dj Gilcrease" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:49 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seeing as you can already create a special user object in your own app
> and treat it as "the" "anonymous" user, I don't see any benefit from
> this, as I told you when you mentioned this in the #django-dev
> channel.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Dj Gilcrease <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch allows the creation of a user with the username
> BuiltinDjangoAnonymousUser, and will return an instance of that User
> (if it exists) instead of the AnonymousUser class. I added checking in
> the actual user
The reason for this Proposal and patch is because I do not like having
to special case permissions for the AnonymousUser for every model I
wish to allow them access to.
I am working on an ACL that has no concept of User per say, it is
using a generic relationship to maintain a list of subjects
