Am 29.07.2010, 10:25 Uhr, schrieb Free Ekanayaka
> I agree that model objects and forms are not generally tight together,
> even though I'd argue that virtually every web application will need
> basic CRUD for the core entities.
Form inference via schema adapter should be possible but I think there is
consensus that interfaces that are schemas can cause more problems than
they solve. Convenience versus overhead and confusion.
> TH> I use a UML modeling tool to generate all my models and form
> schemas so I
> TH> tend not to write much code in these entities.
> That's interesting, any pointer/link for this specific tool?
> TH> I personally think the form schema is much more about the view than
> TH> model.
> Sure, however I believe the issue I was raising is orthogonal to this
> one. Regardless how tight or loosely the form schema is bound to the
> model, the authorization for a view in Repoze.bfg can effectively be
> only True or False, which is simple and nice, but sometimes doesn't fit
> what you need to do.
In those cases you are free to add more to it such as, as Chris said,
security proxies. Making this standard adds a lot of overhead to cases
where it is totally irrelevant.
NB. BFG's openness with regard to storage means you have to think about
non-ZODB environments if you wish to have object-level security.
> Let's make an example. You have a web application for sharing drawings,
> you can upload drawings and for each drawing decide which other users
> you want to share that drawing with. If you share a drawing with another
> person, that other person can perform the same operations as you on it,
> like tagging it or removing it.
> Now let's say that you have views that act on collections of drawings,
> like you could have a view for handling an HTTP request for tagging a
> certain group of drawings or deleting them. The HTTP request for those
> views would typically have a parameter holding a list for drawing IDs to
> act on. How do you define the permission on those views? With a
> model-based permissions system, you would simply make the view public
> and let the model raise Unauthorized if you attempt to do something on a
> drawing you don't have access too. However with a view-based permission
> system you need to use some other pattern, and I'm not sure what would
> be best.
I would think you would need to add something to your application to
handle this (something akin to workflow) but I don't see why you can't
stick with security. BFG provides all the necessary hooks for fine-grained
Regarding Maartijn's discussion of configuration close to the objects.
Having grown up with Zope 2 I'm not keen to see declareProtected(), etc.
return for this even if you have decorators. Much better, in my view, to
have adapters and views implement behaviour and secure these.
I guess the only thing that's missing is security aware form generation,
ie. the ability to lock down parts of the form. With a form generation
library such as deform this can be done at the view level, although it's
Clark Consulting & Research
Repoze-dev mailing list