RickB wrote: > I have posted several times on the Symfony forums concerning > sfGuardPlugin. It's a good plugin - but not quite sufficient IMHO. > Fortunately the alternative schema plugin (to be standard in SF 1.1) > allows a plugin's schema to be extended cleanly and this addresses > some of my own concerns (*). > > This then raises the question of whether the sfGuardUserProfile will > become dispensable in SF1.1, because anyone wanting to extend the main > sfGuardUser can do so without editing the plugin's files. If so, then > your question about the wording of the README becomes less vital than > you indicated; indeed the problem may go away.
Yes, in sf 1.1, with the alternative schema plugin, the sfGuardUserProfile is less needed but still can be used. Fabien > > I'm not saying don't fix it - to be honest I don't exactly know how to > rewrite it myself, so I'll have to trust to the advice of others. I'm > just saying that it may be merely a transient issue. > > Rick > > (*) my other concerns about sfGuardPlugin are about whether it should > have, out of the box, a wider set of functions to support account > administration. Maybe such things are best handled by having a suite > of plugins that are components that developers can assemble into their > application - things like captcha (there is already a captcha plugin) > and email validation (not yet available, although I could contribute > working code that does this). ... Or maybe sfGuardPlugin should > provide a range of configurable components all "in one box" as it were. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
