Simon Groenewolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > node itself are still in place after this exception. > > Two questions: > > Why am I not permitted to delete node 494? I've created it! > (but it somehow got to be owned by 'system')
Create rights and delete rights are not necessary coupled. But if your 'default context' is not 'system' in the first place, it should not have whined. > Deletion of an alias to a node is a side effect of deleting the node -- > should that also be checked in the mayDelete() code? (I did a maydelete > check and still got an exception, I don't think it should work that way) Indeed, I'd say that we should consider alias-nodes as system-nodes, and security should be linked to the node. > I don't know if it makes any difference what type of security you're > using but I'm currently using context security. Neither do I. It could undoubtle be solved in the cloud context security implemetation but because it is better to solve it genericly in the security framework. > ... and while I'm at it: Shouldn't there also be maydelete check that > takes the deletion of relations into account? Yes. We've thought about that issue too. It is indeed not really easy to do know. I would propose a mayDelete(boolean deleteRelations) method in Node. In the mean time, I would recommend cleaning up the cloud with rank 'admin' :-) Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen Mediacentrum 140 H'sum +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US mihxil' [] ()
