Hi Jim, perhaps we can discuss this on zope3-dev.
From: Jim Fulton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 'GMane'; email@example.com > Subject: Re: [Zope3-Users] pluggable authentication utility > > Roger Ineichen wrote: > > Hi Ricki > > > > On Behalf Of GMane > > > >>Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:52 PM > >>To: firstname.lastname@example.org > >>Subject: [Zope3-Users] pluggable authentication utility > >> > >>Hi, > >>I have a simple question about pluggable authentication. > >> > >>I created a folder and I made it a site. > >>In the default Site-Management Folder I created a Pluggable > >>Authentication > >>Utility (named plaut). > >>Inside it I made a PrincipalFolder (Partner) and added a user soc1. > > > > > > Don't give a name (plau). Pluggable authentication utilities > > are as dfault unnamed. All components right now will lookup the > > PAU with name=''. > > For 3.2, we need to find a way to make this clearer. Either > we need to > provide a more verbose description of what the name is for or > perhaps, as > Stephan has suggested, for components that are always looked > up without names, > we should not provide the option of entering a name and, for > others, we > should require a name. We have to totaly hide this part and offer a different concept. Of corse the normal registration will be available too. I propose to add something like a policy. A policy should register a utility. This means we can add policies via ZCML and the user can only process this policy which registers the utility in a predefind way. Then we can provide a task like. "register PAU" and everything gets registred. There could also be a different policy like: "register PAU with initial principal folder" etc. A ZCML directive could look like: <utilityPolicy name="Add PAU with principal Folder" for=".interfaces.IPluggableAuthentication" class=".authentication.AddPAUWithPrincipalFolderPolicy" /> Then we can offer adding utilities via this policies. If somebody likes to register a utility in a different way, he can add own policies for a utility. I use this pattern in a own registry in a different usecase. It makes it very simple for anduser and even me to register components in a registry. And you don't have to know every little about the registration process. What do yo think about that? Any other ideas? Regards Roger Ineichen Projekt01 GmbH www.projekt01.ch _____________________________ END OF MESSAGE > Jim > > -- > Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! > CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org > Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org > _______________________________________________ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3email@example.com http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users