2006/1/11, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I wrote both patches. Please just ignore #1132. It sucks. I was pretty > much just trying to start a conversation there with the simplest (in > this case least amount of code) thing I could get to work. (I probably > should have done so on the list) #1164 is better IMHO, but I still > don't like it too much. I got the context processor ideas from > rjwittams. I think he's still on vacation, but I'd love to hear how > close I came to what he was imagining. > Okay, let's forget #1132 then, and hurra to #1164 :) Yup, having a feedback from robert would be interesting. I'd also like to have adrian's opinion.
> What do people think about the context processor idea? Not necessarily > this implementation, but just the idea of a generic context (just a > dict in the simplest case) that gets passed in to the manipulator for > access by fields. AFAICT this is where the "coupling" is happening. > Any other ideas on how a field might get access to the current user? > I don't know. It is certainly practical, but I fear it might be, I don't know ... too easy ... and that would allow weird things. I mean, shouldn't those things be done in the controller ? Regards, -- Brice Carpentier aka Br|ce
