On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Gustavo Narea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday November 22, 2008 17:46:07 Jorge Vargas wrote: >> > I don't fully understand that. Are you saying that the require-property >> > of a class is already respected for *all* controllers? If yes - sure, >> > then there is no need for a SecureController. >> >> Also what will happen to non-auth controller like the home page? > > If I understood the code well, it will also be able to take advantage of the > "require" attribute.
This is what confused me, why will you want to have auth, using require. if you have a "public page" the only advantage I can see will be if we had the default "anonymous" user with it's permissions on place and it will serve as some kind of "visit" in TG1, but as far as I understand that isn't in trunk yet. Bottom line is that I see both as needed, you have Controller and SecureController, the first one is for public page the last one for private pages, it will be weird to have to say something like "for this controller you are required to be anonymous" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
