On 11 sep, 19:58, Dan Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (snip congratulations - +1 BTW)
> One thing that I still find messy, though, is the whole user/profile > thing. Having separate models for users and profiles has a number of > drawbacks: > (snip) > > What I'd like to see is an easy, supported way of specifying the name > of the user model in the settings file, thereby avoiding all of the > above complexity. There are a few places where hard-coded references > to django.contrib.auth.models.User would need to be replaced, but I > can think of a couple of ways of doing that, including backwards- > compatible ones. Can anyone think of any reasons why this would be a > bad idea? I'd certainly be willing to provide a suitable patch. <thinking-out-loud> While we're at it, there's something I've been thinking about for some times now. IMHO having authentication and authorizations in the same package is kind of design smell. Both concerns, are, well, perhaps not totally orthogonal - you usually need the first to manage the second - but should be as decoupled as possible. And since the strength of Django is to be an higlhy integrated fullstack framework, both should be handled as 'services' - that is, the framework defines an API for authentication and another one for permissions, then you can use any app implementing one of these APIs - specifying which app, as you suggest, via the settings. </thinking-out-loud> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
