Kevin, Sounds good. Thanks for the direction. I'll get a patch together sometime soon and submit a Trac ticket for consideration.
Travis On 2/17/06, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Travis, > > This seems like a useful suggestion. You could open a ticket on it. > > Right now, I don't want to make a change of this sort to the > trunk/0.9. It could certainly land in the future, particularly with a > patch :) > > So, you could always start by creating your own provider based on > Jeff's and then submit a patch for us to incorporate later on. > > Thanks for the suggestion! > > Kevin > > On 2/15/06, Travis Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've just recently moved from 0.8.9 to svn trunk after finding the > > Identity package is just so excellently done. (Jeff Watkins, you do > > great work.) > > > > I had already written an internal identity management package, but > > have just dumped it when I found that Jeff had already done one > > better. We were also of very similar mind, because almost all of the > > mechanics are the same. > > > > However, one feature that I think would be great for the Identity > > module are hierarchical permissions. The first project that really > > got me hooked on them for a permission scheme is Gallery, and they > > boil down to simply allowing permissions to be formed into a > > multi-branch tree where each parent is a superset of the leaves. > > > > I think that it makes for a very intuitive permission system, due to > > things like this being possible: > > > > Groups: (administrators, moderators, guests) > > > > Permissions: (groups assigned that permission in parens) > > > > * Admin Foo (administrators) > > * Add Foo (moderators) > > * Del Foo > > * Edit Foo (moderators) > > * View Foo (guests) > > > > This is a very common occurrence in permission desires, where the > > effective permissions are: > > > > administrators (admin, add, del, edit, view) > > moderators (add, edit, view) > > guests (view) > > > > It makes administration much easier than having to add each and every > > permission to each and every group. I would be happy to assist with > > writing the necessary patch(es), but I wanted to present the idea to > > the group (especially Jeff) to see if this is a desired > > feature/direction for the Identity package, or if I should just focus > > on overwriting the permission model in my own project. > > > > Thanks for your time, > > > > Travis Bradshaw > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -- > Kevin Dangoor > Author of the Zesty News RSS newsreader > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > company: http://www.BlazingThings.com > blog: http://www.BlueSkyOnMars.com > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
