Comments on: Django SocialAuth component, now with some Elfin goodness…

By: kira

kira — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:29:16 +0000

[...] Django SocialAuth component, now with some Elfin goodness… by Elf Sternberg [...]

By: Alexandre

Alexandre — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:35:51 +0000

i felt the same about the uswaretech’s socialauth.
I want to use your fork now but have you made any progress since last year?

By: Elf Sternberg

Elf Sternberg — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:50:50 +0000

Best practices are not always the most efficient. See the most recent post about how Digg forces the browser to hook up event handlers the moment there’s something to hook the event handler up to.

By: Elf Sternberg

Elf Sternberg — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:50:10 +0000

Facebook gives you both a secret key and a public key. The secret key allows you to do server-to-server communication. You need both.

By: huxley

huxley — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:16 +0000

Shouldn’t these be in block extra_head (since javascript goes in the head?)

Javascript can go in the head but there is no prohibition to putting it in the body and if you do put it in the head it will block HTML rendering in many browsers while it’s downloading. CSS should still be put in the head.

Best practices now suggests putting scripts near the end of the body tag, you should still put it in an external file though.

By: Scot Hacker

Scot Hacker — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:01:42 +0000

Docs say I need in settings:
FACEBOOK_API_SECRET=

but upon first FB connection, Django complains that I need:
FACEBOOK_SECRET_KEY

I assume this is the same, and is a typo in the docs. Set FACEBOOK_SECRET_KEY be the same as API_SECRET, but now clicking the FB Connect button does nothing.

By: Scot Hacker

Scot Hacker — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:51:56 +0000

In template socialauth/login.html there are two javascript lines in block extra_body. Shouldn’t these be in block extra_head (since javascript goes in the head?)

By: Scot Hacker

Scot Hacker — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:48:29 +0000

Just digging in with this – project sounds promising. Couldn’t see a way to file bugs at github so leaving notes here.

There are two templates: socialauth_base.html and socialauth/socialauth_base.html . They are not duplicates. Is this redundancy intentional?

By: Panos Laganakos

Panos Laganakos — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:21:38 +0000

I agree with most of the stuff here, and gave a look at your commits on github.

Why do you worry about an app’s base.html overlapping any other? We already extend an app specific template by:

{% extends ‘app_name/base.html’ %}

while

{% extends ‘app_name/app_name_base.html’ %}

looks a bit over-explicit.

“Explicit is better than implicit” – I agree, but I think this is kinda too much

Other than that, good work – the middleware sounds like a nice idea.