[Mailman-Developers] Browser ID integration with Mailman
f at state-of-mind.de
Fri Feb 24 00:04:02 CET 2012
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 07:49 CET, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Florian Fuchs writes:
> > Agreed. Django's User model most definitely covers all our
> > needs.
> What version of Django's User model are you using? The vanilla User
> is actually rather limited. Or do you mean as augmented by
> UserProfiles? If the latter, do you have a specific schema for the
> Profile in mind, or are you just referring to its flexibility?
By "User model" I didn't mean the actual vanilla User model (sorry for not being precise).
I meant its flexibility and that it can be easily enhanced. Also how it's automatically added to the request object and accessible from the templates etc.
> > The thing I am not sure about is: What kind of user info
> > ends up in the core DB and what should be stored in the web ui
> > db. In theory we don't need any kind of permanent storage in the
> > web ui,
> We do, I think. I think the core DB should be constant across
> Mailman installations, and restricted to fields useful in "forum"
> administration (ie, not restricted to mailing lists, although that
> will be the main purpose of Mailman 3 at its initial release). The
> web UI DB storage would be optional and flexible. But all fields and
> tables available to the web UI should be accessed by the same APIs in
> developing an instance of the web UI.
> Also, some fields of the core DB may be provided by a third party in
> vegetative state (eg, a personnel department). We may want to allow
> the web UI to augment, edit, or override some of those fields in
> > But this means we'd have two different data sources since the web
> > ui should not access the core db directly.
> Yes, the core DB and the web UI's persistent storage would be
> different. But clients of the web UI's API need not know that, or do
If they become aware of that, something probably went wrong... ;-)
More information about the Mailman-Developers