[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-16 Thread Florent Guillaume
Steve Alexander wrote: Interesting. It looks to me like you're calling a User object what the CMF calls a Member. Sure. Does the CMF have any users who aren't members? The theory is a bit hazy but the practice is quite clear: in CMF all participants are members. The Member object is just a

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-14 Thread Uwe Oestermeier
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: >I smell a proposal :). I cannot promise to write this proposal in the next two weeks, but I will try to write one before the NeckarSprint (6-9. Oct) takes place. The implementation of user objects would be a manageable sprint task. -- Uwe __

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-14 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Uwe Oestermeier wrote: > Martijn Faassen wrote: > >>I ended up creating a first class User object too. See also my note >>about being able to access these in content space. > > The same holds for my project. Shouldn't they be part of the framework if > so many applications need them? I smell a

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-14 Thread Uwe Oestermeier
Martijn Faassen wrote: > >I ended up creating a first class User object too. See also my note >about being able to access these in content space. > The same holds for my project. Shouldn't they be part of the framework if so many applications need them? Whether these user objects are placed in t

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-14 Thread Martijn Faassen
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Steve Alexander wrote: [snip] I don't think systems should be built relying on being able to annotate principals. That sounds kind of implicit. I'd rather see a first class User concept. That was more the statement I was looking for. That, and a statement

[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-14 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Steve Alexander wrote: >>Interesting. It looks to me like you're calling a User object what the >>CMF calls a Member. > > Sure. Does the CMF have any users who aren't members? Well, I think so. At least the CMF has different objects for members than for users (the former come from the CMF Member

[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-14 Thread Steve Alexander
> Interesting. It looks to me like you're calling a User object what the > CMF calls a Member. Sure. Does the CMF have any users who aren't members? > Would you say that the existence of such a concept > in PAU should make principal annotation a unnecessary, if not even > deprecated? I don't

[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-14 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Steve Alexander wrote: >>I think so too. But I whould not try to explain a PAU (pluggable >>authentication utility) without to use the word principal. I think >>using the words user or participant for a principal in this case is >>not a good idea. > > Perhaps the scope of the PUA can be extended

[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-13 Thread Derrick Hudson
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:08:40PM +0200, Sebastien Douche wrote: | On 9/13/05, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > I wonder, for | > example, which term French speakers use when they *talk* to each other | > about principals... French is known to be very conservative when it

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-13 Thread Shane Hathaway
Tom von Schwerdtner wrote: It might be worth considering that the term "user" has a mostly negative connotation in English (at least in the USA). In tech circles, "user" is completely neutral and safe. However, in slang, sometimes "drug user" is shortened to "user". Shane _

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-13 Thread Tom von Schwerdtner
On 9/12/05, Tonico Strasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb: > ... > > > So, I would like to give "principal" a better name. How about > > "participant"? After all, a principal _participates_ in an interaction > > through a participation (e.g. an HTTP request). Parti

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-12 Thread Alen Stanisic
Should correct myself as actor probably not a good idea; in uml it seems to represent a role rather then a principal/user On 9/13/05, Alen Stanisic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or maybe 'Actor' - widely accepted term in UML speak. > > Regards > Alen > _

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-12 Thread Alen Stanisic
Or maybe 'Actor' - widely accepted term in UML speak. Regards Alen On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:54 +0200, Tonico Strasser wrote: > Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? > > Tonico > ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-12 Thread Martijn Faassen
Lennart Regebro wrote: On 9/12/05, Tonico Strasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? Because it can be things that are not users. That said, "User" may still be the best name. Yeah, I'd prefer 'user' too. It's true that they're more

[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-12 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tonico Strasser wrote: > Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb: > ... > >> So, I would like to give "principal" a better name. How about >> "participant"? After all, a principal _participates_ in an interaction >> through a participation (e.g. an HTTP request). Participant should also >> be pretty eas

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-12 Thread Lennart Regebro
On 9/12/05, Tonico Strasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? Because it can be things that are not users. That said, "User" may still be the best name. ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.

[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant"

2005-09-12 Thread Tonico Strasser
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb: ... So, I would like to give "principal" a better name. How about "participant"? After all, a principal _participates_ in an interaction through a participation (e.g. an HTTP request). Participant should also be pretty easy to translate: it's a common word, esp