On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Gustavo Narea <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
allow_only itself I mean :) not the require stuff. > 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+). > well your new code seems to emulate them, in fact it's interesting I didn't knew that was possible :) > >> 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. > it breaks the docs.... > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
