> One other thing: Questions of passing a model to the view aside,
> models should be agnostic with respect to access control and
> authentication.
That's a good point. I'm currently fine-tuning my solution and will
release it as a component. Let's see if it will be liked. :-)
Check out the new C
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Joshua Muheim wrote:
> Thanks for your opinion, cricket.
>
> I just really like my approach because everything that has to do with
> permissions is handled at one single point. I'm only working on a
> small company-internal application, so I prefer handiness over
>
Thanks for your opinion, cricket.
I just really like my approach because everything that has to do with
permissions is handled at one single point. I'm only working on a
small company-internal application, so I prefer handiness over
performance stuff. I haven't too much experience with my solution
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Joshua Muheim wrote:
> Yes you're right, jeremy, I made this example up (my real User model
> doesn't have an Address, I just added this to show that there are
> cases where there's more than one key that isn't another array
> itself).
>
> The reason why I'd like
Yes you're right, jeremy, I made this example up (my real User model
doesn't have an Address, I just added this to show that there are
cases where there's more than one key that isn't another array
itself).
The reason why I'd like to know this is the following.
I have implemented a simple ACL com
Interesting question: why do you need to know? The User key contains user data,
the Address key contains address data, and the two are related...no? I think
your example array is missing some elements as there would normally be a
user_id key in the Address section...I think.
Jeremy Burns
Class
Hi everybody
I have a User model which when loaded results in something like the
following array:
Array
(
[User] => Array
(
[id] => 3
[name] => posts_editor
[password] => 9fb00060ce49a5d5fab91b350b1529fda941a1de
[superuser] => 0
