Steve Alexander wrote:
>>I think so too. But I whould not try to explain a PAU (pluggable
>>authentication utility) without to use the word principal. I think
>>using the words user or participant for a principal in this case is
>>not a good idea. 
> Perhaps the scope of the PUA can be extended to have a plug-in factory
> for User objects, and to make the current User easily available inside
> page templates and other presentation code.
> People who wish to use[1] the PUA would define their own User class,
> which could be as simple as taking the principal id, but would often be
> more complex according to the needs of their application.

Interesting. It looks to me like you're calling a User object what the
CMF calls a Member. Would you say that the existence of such a concept
in PAU should make principal annotation a unnecessary, if not even

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to