On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:03 AM, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I do not understarstand What I am saying is that you "solved" the problem of write permissions on a column in appadmin by ignoring the permissions. If I now want to be able to see the various permissions in appadmin, there will be another patch... and if I want something else that has to do with authorization on a data item, it too will be some other code... What I want to see is permissions cause / limit access and take a specific behavior in the application - and have that permission setup. For example: PyCon registration (I am making this up I think): if there is a field that the registration desk managers want something done with (maybe not just showing up on a form), I do not want to patch code everywhere; instead, I want to set a behavior for that..... field's permission... I have not thought through all the details yet, but that is the point: I want us to think about this more. The only thing I think I am sure about is I am not happy with the solution in place yesterday. Yes, it solved an immediate problem - and it's fine for a quick patch. But I want to plan to remove the patch, and talk about what the nature of the problem that was discovered is, and find the structure that will handle that nature (and therefore enable easy adapting to future, unanticipated "needs" that are related). Massimo - I hope that last paragraph makes sense to you in light of the Finiteness paper.... Anyway, patch ok for now; lets think about what's going on and see if we can't find a better fitting solution. > > On Mar 30, 11:45 pm, Yarko Tymciurak <[email protected]> wrote: > > I looked at your post into trunk, Massimo - expedient... but can we have > > this be something more... functional before next release? > > I am thinking like this: > > > > istead of: > > > > ignore_rw=True > > > > appadmin would serve better to have something like this: > > > > rw.action= some_function() > > > > Ignore could be implemented this way... > > > > What do you think? > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM, mdipierro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > in trunk > > > > > On Mar 30, 11:49 am, Vidul Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree. > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:28 pm, TheDude <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes! I was disapointed to find out this wasn't the case and had to > go > > > > > back into my db.py models and change it. +1 :) > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 11:11 am, AchipA <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 4:37 pm, Kacper Krupa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > i also agree > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 4:23 pm, Timothy Farrell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > agree > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 4:10 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> Right now if you say: > > > > > > > > > > >> db.table.field.writable=False > > > > > > > > > > >> your field will be hidden to both custom forms and > appadmin > > > forms. I > > > > > > > > >> think appadmin forms should ignore these constraints and > > > always > > > > > > > > >> display all fields. Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > >> Massimo > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Timothy Farrell <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Computer Guy > > > > > > > > Statewide General Insurance Agency (www.swgen.com) > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" 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/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
