[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 wrapping around the standard User object created during authentication. This wrapping is useful for annotations (email, last_login_time) and other indirections so that Member properties storage is actually dealt with by another tool (the MemberData tool). Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 to have a plug-in factory for User objects, and to make the current User easily available inside page templates and other presentation code. People who wish to use[1] the PUA would define their own User class, which could be as simple as taking the principal id, but would often be more complex according to the needs of their application. Interesting. It looks to me like you're calling a User object what the CMF calls a Member. Would you say that the existence of such a concept in PAU should make principal annotation a unnecessary, if not even deprecated? Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 really see the point of principal annotation as a special thing. Being able to annotate things is good. I'm not sure principals should be a special case either way. Can you annotate permissions? 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. -- Steve Alexander ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 tool, the latter from a standard Zope user folder). That distinction was it that I was reminded of when you said you wanted separate User objects. 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 really see the point of principal annotation as a special thing. Being able to annotate things is good. I'm not sure principals should be a special case either way. Can you annotate permissions? Ok, I see your point :). My question was actually positioned with the PrincipalAnnotation utility in mind and whether you think that it still is needed once you have first class User objects. 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 regarding the PrincipalAnnotation utility in particular... Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 proposal :). ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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). Participant should also be pretty easy to translate: it's a common word, especially outside IT vocubulary, which means chances are good to find appropriate native translations for it. (Note that the point of finding translations for technical terms is not only for the sake of a translated Zope 3 UI. It's more about how people understand technical terms. I think most Zope 3 developers aren't native English speakers and they do not necessarily think in English. So, good words that have good native translations help the understanding process on their end. That is not only important for _learning_ a concept, but also for _explaining_ it. As a book author, I know what I'm talking about... :)) Hope to hear some comments, Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? It might be worth considering that the term user has a mostly negative connotation in English (at least in the USA). IMO anyways, I don't have any data to back this up. -Tom ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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
| comes to introducing English words to itself
|
| Principal is used in law, finance, education, art, social economics...
| All french translations aren't good for zope3. Using 'Principal' is
| another option but it is also a french word ('main', 'the main thing')
| : source of confusion.
Interesting. I suppose English obtained principal from French ca
1040 ad. Maybe the French are conservative about adopting English
words because the English were, generally, uneducated peasants while
the French were the ruling class. (then again, that probably has no
relevance :-))
English has several definitions, with main or primary
being one of them. I suppose that is where the others are derived
from. For example, the highest-level official in a primary or
secondary school is called the principal.
Maybe the use of principal for security stems from the idea of a
primary identity, which can be related to secondary identities (ie a
user vs. the groups the user is a member of).
-D
--
After you install Microsoft Windows XP, you have the option to create
user accounts. If you create user accounts, by default, they will have
an account type of administrator with no password.
-- bugtraq
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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, especially outside IT vocubulary, which means chances are good to find appropriate native translations for it. (Note that the point of finding translations for technical terms is not only for the sake of a translated Zope 3 UI. It's more about how people understand technical terms. I think most Zope 3 developers aren't native English speakers and they do not necessarily think in English. So, good words that have good native translations help the understanding process on their end. That is not only important for _learning_ a concept, but also for _explaining_ it. As a book author, I know what I'm talking about... :)) Hope to hear some comments, Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? Tonico ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 easy to translate: it's a common word, especially outside IT vocubulary, which means chances are good to find appropriate native translations for it. (Note that the point of finding translations for technical terms is not only for the sake of a translated Zope 3 UI. It's more about how people understand technical terms. I think most Zope 3 developers aren't native English speakers and they do not necessarily think in English. So, good words that have good native translations help the understanding process on their end. That is not only important for _learning_ a concept, but also for _explaining_ it. As a book author, I know what I'm talking about... :)) Hope to hear some comments, Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? Well, I'm not the one who invented the abstract concepts, but here's the justification I've come up with: Users are real people out of real flesh while principals are objects that represent them in a Zope 3 security context. You can think of principals like lawyers. Lawyers represent people (the users) before court (in this case, the Zope 3 interaction). Of course, lawyers can also represent something else, e.g. a company or an organization. Same with principals: there doesn't always have to be a real human behind a principal... Another example: Unix (and many other systems) call it users, like you suggest. The interesting thing is that daemon processes on Unix run under certain users as if they were acting on behalf of a human person. But they aren't, they're just fulfilling management tasks on behalf of the system. Of course, they still need to take part in the security system, that's why they run under user identities that actually don't represent human beings but those management tasks (e.g. mail or postgres). So, wouldn't it be clearer to call it something else than users if there isn't always a human behind this? Of course, user is a long accepted term (Unix is over 30 years old :)), so the question is whether clarity of terms is more important than convention. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
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 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
