Steve Alexander wrote:
>>Interesting. It looks to me like you're calling a User object what the
>>CMF calls a Member.
> 
> Sure.  Does the CMF have any users who aren't members?

Well, I think so. At least the CMF has different objects for members
than for users (the former come from the CMF Member tool, the latter
from a standard Zope user folder). That distinction was it that I was
reminded of when you said you wanted separate User objects.

>>Would you say that the existence of such a concept
>>in PAU should make principal annotation a unnecessary, if not even
>>deprecated?
> 
> 
> I don't really see the point of principal annotation as a special thing.
>  Being able to annotate things is good.  I'm not sure principals should
> be a special case either way.  Can you annotate permissions?

Ok, I see your point :). My question was actually positioned with the
PrincipalAnnotation utility in mind and whether you think that it still
is needed once you have first class User objects.

> I don't think systems should be built relying on being able to annotate
> principals.  That sounds kind of implicit.  I'd rather see a first class
> User concept.

That was more the statement I was looking for. That, and a statement
regarding the PrincipalAnnotation utility in particular...

Philipp
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to