On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Gustavo Narea m...@gustavonarea.net wrote:
Hello, everybody.
I already mentioned this in another email, but I think it deserves its own
thread.
In trunk I've implemented a class decorator that sets controller-wide access
rules (@tg.protect), based on the
On Wednesday February 11, 2009 16:49:13 jorge.vargas wrote:
class decorators? what about everyone not in py2.6? I think way back
when allow_only was created we agreed it was a good compromise before
class decorators where introduced.
class DaController(BaseController):
pass
DaController =
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Gustavo Narea m...@gustavonarea.net wrote:
On Wednesday February 11, 2009 16:49:13 jorge.vargas wrote:
class decorators? what about everyone not in py2.6? I think way back
when allow_only was created we agreed it was a good compromise before
class decorators
On Wednesday February 11, 2009 17:13:12 jorge.vargas wrote:
I think at this point this will confuse people more than what it will
help, why didn't you suggested this way back when allow_only was
introduced?
1.- That feature existed even before I joined TurboGears, as
Controller.require.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Gustavo Narea m...@gustavonarea.net wrote:
On Wednesday February 11, 2009 17:13:12 jorge.vargas wrote:
I think at this point this will confuse people more than what it will
help, why didn't you suggested this way back when allow_only was
introduced?
1.-
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:35 PM, jorge.vargas jorge.var...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the class decorator approach but I'm really not
sure if it will break stuff already build on TG.
It doesn't break anything by itself, but I'm proposing that we drop the
Controller.allow_only feature.
it
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Florent Aide florent.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:35 PM, jorge.vargas jorge.var...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the class decorator approach but I'm really not
sure if it will break stuff already build on TG.
It doesn't break anything by
