On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:13:27 you wrote:
> > By passing through the View name, we are expecting all providers to
> > handle all
> > views, and by adding a view this would require a change to all providers.
>
> That's the "hackiness" that I was referring to.
OK, how about a slight change then.
What about an expected "permission" attribute to the base view class.
Initialised to something boring like None
The view registration code then makes sure that the permission is set.
We use 'view' and 'edit' for now, and add the appropriate permission to all
the views.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:13:27 you wrote:
> > By passing through the View name, we are expecting all providers to
> > handle all
> > views, and by adding a view this would require a change to all providers.
>
> That's the "hackiness" that I was referring to.
OK, how about a slight change then.
What about an expected "permission" attribute to the base view class.
Initialised to something boring like None
The view registration code then makes sure that the permission is set.
We use 'view' and 'edit' for now, and add the appropriate permission to all
the views.