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
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
__
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
_
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
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
>
_
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
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
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
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.
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
17 matches
Mail list logo