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
> 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...
Zope3-dev mailing list