Dieter Maurer wrote:
You are probably right  -- but "SimpleUserFolder" is really "simple" (which
sometimes is good).


Simpler is ALWAYS good, as the name of my company kinda gives away ;-) Nothing should ever be less simple than is absolutely necessary!

Had *you* used all these reusable components to provide the functionality
in SUF, standard users could have used then out of the box -- with just
sumitting a configuration page. As it is now, they have to think
about (e.g.) cache management and invalidation.

All the components I've mentioned so far have been standard Zope components. If their documentation isn't so good, that's a seperate problem. If I provide work-a-likes, then I have to be responsible for that documentation too, which isn't great ;-) That said, maybe I should provide more examples of how to get things like caching and cookie auth working with SUF?


I would like to stress that I do not think SUF were bad.
I just defend my statement that "exUserFolder" is something
like a big brother to SUF.

A bloated fat cousin maybe ;-)

cheers,

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
           - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to