"Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid
development and clean, pragmatic design"—unless you want to do something
seemingly simple like using email addresses for authentication, in which
case you need to monkey patch models and forms to get everything working
right, wh
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Danny Adair wrote:
> It's the "required" of username that's the problem if you don't want a
> username at all when authenticating against email.
> It would have to be not required and check required fields in clean()
> where the backend could be asked what's really
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
What you are really saying is this: being pragmatic means that we
> prioritise *your* immediate need above the need to keep the code and the
> docs maintainable, and above the need to maintain compatibility with
> existing installations.
>
Of co
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> I've written such a pluggable User app. By default, the User model works
> as before. But I've also provided a User model (and forms, admin, backends,
> etc) implementation that removes the limitations of the User model noted
> above and
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:41:36 AM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
I don't like this function that much.
>
I share that sentiment. When it becomes possible to refactor auth.User, I
hope we'll be able to first deprecate and then remove
User.is_authenticated() and User.is_anonymous(). In addition
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Clay McClure wrote:
What you are really saying is this: being pragmatic means that we
>> prioritise *your* immediate need above the need to keep the code and the
>> docs maintainable, and above the need to maintain compatibility with
>> exis
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Danny Adair
wrote:
Hi Danny,
> I'm sorry I don't know if I like that. I hope I understand correctly
> what you're doing, and that my criticism is seen as constructive.
>
Thanks for reviewing the code and providing feedback.
> This sells itself as "pluggable
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Daniel Sokolowski <
daniel.sokolow...@klinsight.com> wrote:
> The issue here is that django auth is limited, and restrictive and needs
> hacks to make it use emails as usernames, we can agree on that yes?
I agree with this point.
> We can also agree that contr
On Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:52:01 PM UTC-4, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
The only way I can see around this problem is to come up with a way for
> ForeignKey(User) to transparently become an effective
> LazyForeignKey('auth.User').
>
I explored this a bit and found that, since the binding of
Fo
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:38:36 AM UTC-4, Tom Evans wrote:
I'm not -1 on pluggable auth models, I just think it is orthogonal to
> the real issue. A 'fix' which doesn't allow longer email addresses by
> default in d.c.a is not a fix as far as I am concerned.
>
We could debate what it means to "
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
I agree - that's why my original proposal was to make the LazyForeignKey
> explicit -- that makes the adoption process opt in. Yes, this means that
> apps need to be modified and advertised to be "1.5
> swappabl
11 matches
Mail list logo
