No, now that I think about it I think you are right it should be bundled 
with sfGuardPlugin and just be a configurable option for them to use in 
addition to the base sfGuardPlugin functionality.

As for the auto loading of models, in order for this to be possible I 
think we may need to have a manual installation step when you choose 
which ORM you are using. That kind of sucks :(

- Jon

Francois Zaninotto wrote:
> Are the reset password/registration form/other stuff able to work without an
> sfGuardPlugin installed? If not, it seems to me that they should be optional
> features bundled with the main plugin, that you can activate/deactivate via
> configuration (see sfSimpleBlogPlugin for instance).
>
> As for bundling two versions of the model in the same plugin, a problem
> might be the autoloading. Both Propel and Doctrine model classes will be
> autoloaded and therefore in conflict... 
>
> François
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> De la part de Matthias Nothhaft
> Envoyé : lundi 21 mai 2007 16:55
> À : [email protected]
> Objet : [symfony-users] Re: sfGuardDoctrine
>
>
> Thank you. :-)
>
> Hm.. who else is working on the sfGuard plugin(s) ?  I don't want to change
> things before getting more feedback as sfGuard is a pretty important
> plugin...
>
> What do other people think about:
>
> - Making sfGuard driver based?
>   - one main plugin
>   - driver plugins for Propel & Doctrine
>   - adding further plugins for
>     - reset password
>     - a registration form
>     - other stuff!?
>
> - Problem: admin generator (is not driver based itself)
>
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>
>
> Jonathan H. Wage wrote:
>   
>> I think you are right, the sfGuard plugin should be consolidated in to 
>> one plugin, and use extracted drivers for the database, so we can have 
>> a config option to use doctrine or propel, and then the other 
>> functionality related to auth, should be written as separate plugins 
>> but sfGuardPlugin should be written to handle the 
>> integration/communication to the other related plugins.
>>
>> - Jon
>>
>> Matthias Nothhaft wrote:
>>     
>>> Jonathan H. Wage wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Do you have time to help implement the plugins in this way?
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I need generic user functions for severel projects - so yes, I would 
>>> help - no question. I would like to have flexible / pluggable code, e.g.
>>> with full I18N support and so on. We only need to find a good 
>>> solution how it should look like at the end.
>>>
>>> One problem is the admin generator as it directly depends/uses Propel 
>>> or Doctrine. My opinion is that this is a big disadvantage of the 
>>> admin generator at all.. But we should make some small steps before 
>>> doing the big ones.. ;-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Matthias Nothhaft wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Jonathan H. Wage wrote:
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> That is correct, I added the e-mail address because it was needed 
>>>>>> for the forgot password functionality, then someone came along and 
>>>>>> didn't like it so they removed the e-mail address, but it looks 
>>>>>> like they did not remove it completely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about we add the e-mail address to the plugin but make it a 
>>>>>> configurable option in the schema. That way we can have the e-mail 
>>>>>> address and forgot password functionality as something you can 
>>>>>> turn on and off?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe somehow we can create a sfGuardForgotPasswordPlugin and 
>>>>>> hook it in to sfGuard? Any ideas?
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> This is a question of how to organize plugins of plugins.
>>>>>
>>>>> My wish and hope is: Please do not only "fix this plugin" but think 
>>>>> about a general solution to have a good concept for future plugins.
>>>>>
>>>>> A second wish is: Please consider to change the plugins so that the 
>>>>> sfGuardPlugin is driver based:
>>>>>
>>>>> One sfGuardPlugin and driver plugins for Propel and Doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the plugin needs some Mixins or something like an 
>>>>> event/observer support so that other plugins can easily plugin.. (I 
>>>>> hate the term
>>>>> "plugin"...) ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm..  I hope one day some people will understand why I repeat 
>>>>> these wishes again and again... :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> It would make it more fun to contribute and much easier to build a 
>>>>> nice plugin library for symfony.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>   
>>>       
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>   

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"symfony users" 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-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to