On Monday 28 October 2002 12:08 pm, Ian Bicking wrote: > I also agree a user framework would be good. UserKit is rather > opaque to me, though, and it's been around a long time without > getting better. Maybe all it needs to get better is developer > documentation -- but it really *needs* that documentation. I suspect > it is using an OO style that Chuck took from WebObjects, and which is > largely foreign to most of us here. Especially the use of mix-ins is > hard to understand from the outside.
I wrote it and used it on a project which I'm not on anymore. My other project pre-dated it and I don't feel like ripping it up to use UserKit since it already works. The style doesn't really come from WebObjects at all. I spec'ed out UserKit right here on this list, people commented on it, then I implemented it. The MixIn style is due to different needs such as what features you want, whether or not you will use MiddleKit, etc. Sorry I haven't been responsive to UserKit questions or change requests, but I don't have time for it at this point. I was hoping someone might take up the cause. I didn't think it was so big and difficult that no one could grok it and continue it, but maybe I'm wrong. There are certainly plenty of doc strings and sensibly named methods like createUser() and playsRole(). I'm also available for contracting (enhancements, code reviews, advice, app dev, sys admin) which is what gets most of my energy. -Chuck ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
