On Wednesday February 11, 2009 17:13:12 jorge.vargas wrote: > I think at this point this will confuse people more than what it will > help, why didn't you suggested this way back when allow_only was > introduced?
1.- That feature existed even before I joined TurboGears, as Controller.require. Controller.allow_only was just the rename of .require because of the name collision. 2.- I wasn't using Py2.6 and I had never dealt with class decorators (I did hear about them, but I thought they'd only work on Py 2.6+). > I like the "class decorator" approach but I'm really not > sure if it will break stuff already build on TG. It doesn't break anything by itself, but I'm proposing that we drop the Controller.allow_only feature. > PS: get on IRC :) OK, although maybe it's best to discuss this over here so that everybody will participate. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
