On 4/23/06, Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See, for example, Ben's and Tim's cases. Both are satisfied with the model, > they just need minor tweaks. Tim uses it as it is, even with some facility > of logging in by email, while Ben would be happy if this was optional. But > the model needed just minor tweaks for both.
Just so my comment isn't misconstrued: I was only saying that if this gets committed, make sure that there's a migration note for folks who have deployed identity-using applications using a pre-0.9.a5 version and want to upgrade, since this is a potentially app-breaking change. I really don't have a problem with either definition. So far, I've written one app without identity, one that uses it as-is, and one that used its own classes. Once you have a feel for how identity works, the differences are not that great. -- Tim Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
