[Zope] Re: login page problem

Chris Withers chris at simplistix.co.uk
Fri Apr 8 03:09:18 EDT 2005


Dieter Maurer wrote:
> You are probably right  -- but "SimpleUserFolder" is really "simple" (which
> sometimes is good).

Simpler is ALWAYS good, as the name of my company kinda gives away ;-)
Nothing should ever be less simple than is absolutely necessary!

> Had *you* used all these reusable components to provide the functionality
> in SUF, standard users could have used then out of the box -- with just
> sumitting a configuration page. As it is now, they have to think
> about (e.g.) cache management and invalidation.

All the components I've mentioned so far have been standard Zope 
components. If their documentation isn't so good, that's a seperate 
problem. If I provide work-a-likes, then I have to be responsible for 
that documentation too, which isn't great ;-) That said, maybe I should 
provide more examples of how to get things like caching and cookie auth 
working with SUF?

> I would like to stress that I do not think SUF were bad.
> I just defend my statement that "exUserFolder" is something
> like a big brother to SUF.

A bloated fat cousin maybe ;-)

cheers,

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk



More information about the Zope mailing list