Re: [Zope-dev] Expanded access file (was Re: LoginManager patch consideredharmful)harmful)

2000-07-19 Thread Shane Hathaway
Chris Withers wrote: "Phillip J. Eby" wrote: Maybe, maybe not. I think perhaps the most compelling argument from Digital Creations' viewpoint for having an expanded "access" file might be the simplification of the setup process for customers. And it would also make it easier to:

Re: [Zope-dev] Expanded access file (was Re: LoginManager patch consideredharmful)harmful)

2000-07-19 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 10:15 AM 7/19/00 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: Chris Withers wrote: "Phillip J. Eby" wrote: Maybe, maybe not. I think perhaps the most compelling argument from Digital Creations' viewpoint for having an expanded "access" file might be the simplification of the setup process for

Re: [Zope-dev] Expanded access file (was Re: LoginManagerpatch consideredharmful)harmful)

2000-07-19 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 11:09 AM 7/19/00 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: Patch opportunity, perhaps? :) Ty and I would do it, no problem. Heck, I've been tempted to do it as a LoginManager function, since Zope doesn't pay attention to anything past the first line of the "access" file... We would be most

Re: [Zope-dev] Expanded access file

2000-07-19 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 12:50 PM 7/19/00 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: "Phillip J. Eby" wrote: At 11:09 AM 7/19/00 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: Patch opportunity, perhaps? :) Ty and I would do it, no problem. Heck, I've been tempted to do it as a LoginManager function, since Zope doesn't pay attention to