On Monday November 24, 2008 07:10:57 Florent Aide wrote:
> You don't get what I wanted to say: this is a good idead. We don't
> need SecureController anymore. Someone copied the code from my first
> SecureController implementation inside the tg core thus duplicating
> the code. (SVN to see for yourself).
>
> I was not aware that my code was in the core tg controller before you
> pointed at it. When I looked, I said: since this code has been copied
> over inside the code no more need for the secure controller.
>
> I am not responsible of the code duplication, I engineered everything
> to be separated from the start. But one this is sure, I feel the
> securecontroller code (be it in a separate class or in the core tg
> controller) should be in the core and not just in the quickstarted
> code.
>
> Any more question ?
Oh, I'm sorry. I got the opposite ("It's a good idea to have them both"). ;-)
OK, I'll take care of removing that.
Cheers!
--
Gustavo Narea <http://gustavonarea.net/>.
Get rid of unethical constraints! Get freedomware:
http://www.getgnulinux.org/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
