Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Yuppie,
>
It is not obvious why you have to use explicit Zope 2 style security for
add views and declarative Zope 3 style security for other views. But I'd
rather like to see the 'permission' attribute of implemented
for Zope 2 instead of a new di
Hi Yuppie,
>>> It is not obvious why you have to use explicit Zope 2 style security for
>>> add views and declarative Zope 3 style security for other views. But I'd
>>> rather like to see the 'permission' attribute of implemented
>>> for Zope 2 instead of a new directive.
>> Mmmm... I'm not s
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Let's consider a type Alpha that has a custom add form registered as
>>> such a (context, request, fti) adapter with name "Alpha". fti.factory is
>>> "Alpha", and there's a corresponding IFactory utility (with name "Al
Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>>> How about a new
>>> directive that mimics , but registers the
>>> (context,request,fti) adapter? I could probably put that together if
>>> people think it's a good idea.
>> CMF add views are different because they are looked up by a special
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Mon Dec 8 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Dec 9 12:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from CMF Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.5 : Linux
From: CMF Tests
Date: Mon Dec 8 20:48:44 EST 2008
URL: ht