Chris Withers wrote: > Right now, I'd like to see the scope kept _tight_, just dealing with > authentication, no user metadata, that can wait for later. There is XUF, but I'm > not sure about the code quality and I think it tries to do too much. > > Of course, I could be wrong...
Speaking as someone who's worked on parts of the code, I don't think you're wrong. XUF has issues that I'm not sure anyone really understands, though my recent "exploding user object" cache work got it to the point where it does seem to be stable on heavily-loaded systems. Yes, it does try to do too much, I think. Back before I figured out enough of XUF to fix the cache issues I played around a bit with a virginal pluggable user folder (right now it does not do much of anything, including authenticate, but it is a beginning.) I still have the code, and my boss would still like to see it brought to fruition. I do have quite a bit to say about the design of such an animal. It's something we need. > In any case, I'd be happy to monitor a discussion to build a solution to this (I > might even be persuaded to strike up a fishbowl process ;-) and get the finished > product done. I dunno if I could manage it for 2.6, but I'd certainly get it > done for 2.7... I held back on suggesting this because I'm not convinced I have the resources or the ability to bring this baby up on my own, and especially not in time for 2.6. But if others are interested in _contributing_, everyone can count me in too, I'm sure (although how much time I have to offer is up in the air as other projects are starting to pound on my door...) _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )