Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Maybe django core doesn't need ACL's, maybe django users will need ACL's
>
> I don't think it is a maybe for django users/developers. If Django wants
> to take off it is going to need some type of ACL otherwise people are
> just going to develop their own and you will en
On 4 Oct 2005, at 16:00, Jason Huggins wrote:
So... does anyone have any thoughts on how to implement "ownership" in
Django? What would define "ownership"? (Any object you create and any
object you're granted permissions to edit? Do we need to track
ownerhip
at the object level? How should
Jason Huggins wrote:
> One big thing I'm missing in Django is the concept of object
> "ownership"... Here's my use case:
> Lets say I have 3 users:
> 1) Superuser - that's me... I can create or edit anything
> 2) Bob - He only has permission to create, edit, or delete expense
> reports that he own
> Moreover, if you don't need a lot of permissions checking, then you just need
> a few basic ACL rules to do the job.
>
I know I am new here but a basic ACL is pretty common place in any kind
of advanced development. It just depends on where you do it. You could
do it in PostgreSQL for example
Le Mercredi 5 Octobre 2005 01:02, Robert Wittams a écrit :
> This is another ridiculously overcomplicated system that has been
> designed to try to take care of every problem, whilst proliferating
> database entries like there is no tomorrow, and bewildering users and
> administrators beyond belie
On 10/4/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is another ridiculously overcomplicated system that has been
> designed to try to take care of every problem, whilst proliferating
> database entries like there is no tomorrow, and bewildering users and
> administrators beyond belief.
This is another ridiculously overcomplicated system that has been
designed to try to take care of every problem, whilst proliferating
database entries like there is no tomorrow, and bewildering users and
administrators beyond belief.
There is *no* authorisation system that is going to satisfy eve
Sending again, since it seemed to get lost
We had the same discussion before.
The point is not anything as specific as ownership. It is authorisation
in general.
The only way to do this generically, without enforcing a horrendous
zope-alike nightmare of per-object acls, is to allow the auth
Hello,
Thought I would throw a bone out there and ask what it would take to get
transaction
support finished up?
Is there anything we can do to enhance the priority of the feature?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
Postgr
One thing I had complete for a pet framework I was working on (that was
until Django appeared and blew mine away ;) was a "policy" structure
that allowed for ownership and other features that I liked.
I was going to pull it out and re-use it in the project I am working
on, but I figure it is wort
One big thing I'm missing in Django is the concept of object
"ownership"... Here's my use case:
Lets say I have 3 users:
1) Superuser - that's me... I can create or edit anything
2) Bob - He only has permission to create, edit, or delete expense
reports that he owns. (He can "own" something he cre
On 3-09-2005, at 12:11, hugo wrote:
I did change the LANGUAGE_CODE stuff for the DjangoContext a bit,
because LANGUAGE_CODE is only defined on the request if you have the
i18n middleware loaded - now the DjangoContext either carries
request.LANGUAGE_CODE or settings.LANGUAGE_CODE.
Oooops, I
12 matches
Mail list logo
