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 deprecated? Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list [email protected] Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
