> > I'm not sure it was the intention in the design of swappable.
I don't know the intended use of swappable, but this seems like exactly the type of thing that a 'swappable' model should be able to do. > However, we still have the issue of different forms, urls, views etc all > based off the changed model. Marc, can you explain why you feel we need different forms, urls, views, etc. The only forms that would not work appropriately with EmailUser would be UserCreation and UserChange forms, both of which can be modified to work correctly with EmailUser or other custom user models . The views in d.c.auth all work correctly with the proposed EmailUser and most custom user models. The urls in d.c.auth are not concerned with the username field so I don't see an issue there. The ModelAdmin class in d.c.auth can also be modified to respect USERNAME_FIELD and work with EmailUser. Making these change automatically would be horrible. Can you explain why this would be horrible. The changes proposed in the 'authtools' style approach make d.c.auth more abstract in ways that make using a custom user model easier, while still keeping d.c.auth functioning the same when the user has not been swapped out. To me, this is a step towards making custom user models easier and thus, a bonus. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
