Tai, I think you are overestimating the importance of a "pluggable" user model. If 100 apps all try to add fields to the User model then of course bloat and performance issues and field name conflicts will be a problem. But I don't think that will happen. There are very good reasons for an app *not* to plug in: it's more work for everyone who uses your app and it means the app is incompatible with Django's default user. I trust app developers to recognize both of those facts.
This is orthogonal to the notion of swappable users. Django's default doesn't satisfy many projects' needs and we want to give them a way to implement their own user on a project-wide basis. Such users are "pluggable" merely because they are raw python, and raw python supports multiple inheritance and extensive monkey-patching. Setting a precedent here is fine IMO, and doesn't signal that every app should store all data related to the user on the user model. Best, Alex On Apr 10, 2012 6:34 PM, "Tai Lee" <real.hu...@mrmachine.net> wrote: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
