On 06/04/2012, at 7:27 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> I haven't been following this thread nearly closely enough. But ISTM that >> any abstraction that doesn't let the admin work with any User (assuming it >> supplies the right interface) isn't very useful, and rather misses the point. >> > > I'm starting to come to the conclusion that as part of this process we'll > need to document a sort of "minimal viable user" -- the smallest set of user > APIs that a reusable app -- including the admin -- can reasonably rely on. If > we're fairly clear about this interface then it remains fairly easy to > produce apps that rely on auth in an abstract way. In fact, this sort of > "minimal user" might even make auth-dependant reusable apps *more* prevalent > since at the moment the set of user APIs are rather nebulous and > ill-specified.
It's a good thing that I didn't document that as a "universal concern" on the wiki right from the start ... https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ContribAuthImprovements#TheUserContract Oh wait... :-) Russ %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
