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 Zope3email@example.com Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com