On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56 PM, David Koblas<kob...@extra.com> wrote: > > Just to add my $0.02 cents to this, I too would like a better way to > extend django.contrib.auth.models.User than the current approach. The > two biggest "problems" that I have are: > > * Everything depends on django.contrib.auth.models.User -- which means > that while you could swap out your authenticator you still basically > have to go and rip apart everybody's applications to support your user > object. > * To the above point, it also means that to construct your own User > object means you can't use contrib.admin since it depends on the User > object. > > What would be really nice is to have something like: > django.auth.interface.User > > Which in turn would instantiate something from settings.USER_MODEL > (default contrib.auth.modes) this might mean you could subsume > AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE into the USER_INSTANCE for most developers. Up shot > is that I can now still use public applications and the admin system, > but now somebody can just create a "facebook.models.User" class that > mirrors using facebook as the authenticator and get everything for free...
You aren't the first person to suggest this, and it's something I'm interested in looking at in the v1.2 timeframe. This is a very common question, and one for which Django needs to have a clear and well documented solution. Ticket #3011 has one solution; I'm not completely convinced that the patch on that ticket is the whole solution, though. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
