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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
___
