> On 5/22/06, Joel Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I added a section to the end of the Identity page in the wiki, called
> > "Authenticating against an external password source", along with some
> > sample source code.
Jorge Vargas wrote:
> I think you should move that to it's own wiki page since it's an extension
> to the original code that you should distribute with your project.
Many of the wiki pages describe how to extend the framework, such as
the widgets pages. And I only added 4 sentences, so it would be a very
short page. But if you feel strongly about this, I have no objection to
your making the change.
In this case it's diferent, the widgets are design to be extended by the end user, the identity framework was not.
About the wiki page I was thinking of having a "extending the identity framework", the first input will be your SMB code, and then adding more things like the new sqlAlchemy provider, etc. it will start small as everything :)
> > Basically, I created a new Identity provider, SoSmbIdentityProvider,
> > which subclasses the SQLObject provider, but validates user names and
> > passwords against a Windows domain.
>
> on the other hand this is not a smb provider, or at least it's not complete
> so you should rename it. a SMB provider will take care of the management of
> everything and will not depend on sqlobject.
>
> i believe you left it there because it was just what you needed.
What was I thinking? Contributing "sample source code" that's not
feature complete? ;-)
a "hack" into the framework is not sample source. Your changing the integrity of the egg file. Now a patch is something else. You code right now can't be added to the trunk (although I don't think you wrote it thinking of that.
You're right about it not being a pure SMB provider. As I said in my
original post, it "subclasses the SQLObject provider, but validates
user names and passwords against a Windows domain." Just to be
perfectly clear, that means that it functions EXACTLY like the existing
SQLObject provider in every way EXCEPT for the user name and password
checking.
yes I read the code
That's why I called it "SoSmbIdentityProvider", where "So"
refers to the SQLObject data model, and "Smb" refers to the SMB
password checking.
yes but that name suggests you have a SOCol that goes down to the windows internals. Not an overlay that does it.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
