[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] characters allowed in content IDs
yuppie wrote at 2006-3-21 21:12 +0100: >> There was a clear result: make the id checker policy configurable -- >> as Zope 3 does. > >Well. That's right but doesn't help us much. We don't have a volunteer >for implementing that new feature. And we don't have a consensus what >the default policy should be. If the policy were pluggable, I think that nobody would object to follow your proposal to use the Zope3 default. > ... >Why should I make it configurable? Because it would be the right way to do it and because it seems to be the prefered solution by the community. >I volunteer to fix a serious bug by >restoring behavior we had until 6 months ago. An INameChooser based >configurable solution would be much more work than just fixing the bug. > >> The same arguments apply in CMF land as in Zope land. > >You deleted the sentence in which I said what's different IMHO: > >> In CMF we plan to use views by default and it's quite common that normal >> site members are allowed to add content items. > >So it's more urgent to fix the bug in CMF than in Zope. I would prefer a mechanism as the current CMF uses it: Prevent the creation of a content object only when it really conflicts with something. Or at least, prevent only ids starting with "@@" or "++" (as these are the prefixes really used by Zope 3, right?). As mentioned in "zope-dev", I am primarily concerned with WebDAV integration. And our WebDAV using projects are in fact CMF based. On the other hand, if I am the only objector, do what you propose. I am able to change it in our Zope version to fit our needs. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] characters allowed in content IDs
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 09:12:56PM +0100, yuppie wrote: > Why should I make it configurable? I volunteer to fix a serious bug by > restoring behavior we had until 6 months ago. An INameChooser based > configurable solution would be much more work than just fixing the bug. I think you should just go ahead and fix it for now, and put something about an INameChooser in TODO.txt and/or comments. (oops, we don't have a TODO in cmf do we?). Somebody who thinks it's important can volunteer to do The Right Thing for CMF 2.1 or whatever. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] characters allowed in content IDs
Hi Dieter! Dieter Maurer wrote: yuppie wrote at 2006-3-20 18:17 +0100: ... But I gave up my attempt to fix this in the Zope layer because the related discussion on zope-dev ended without a clear result. There was a clear result: make the id checker policy configurable -- as Zope 3 does. Well. That's right but doesn't help us much. We don't have a volunteer for implementing that new feature. And we don't have a consensus what the default policy should be. I hope there are no objections against fixing this in PortalFolder's _checkId method for now. Almost surely, you should make it configurable there, too. Why should I make it configurable? I volunteer to fix a serious bug by restoring behavior we had until 6 months ago. An INameChooser based configurable solution would be much more work than just fixing the bug. The same arguments apply in CMF land as in Zope land. You deleted the sentence in which I said what's different IMHO: In CMF we plan to use views by default and it's quite common that normal site members are allowed to add content items. So it's more urgent to fix the bug in CMF than in Zope. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] characters allowed in content IDs
Hi Tres! Tres Seaver wrote: yuppie wrote: CMF 2.0 will ship with some browser views. Browser views have their own prefix '@@' to avoid conflicts with content IDs. But Zope 2 doesn't reserve those names for views as Zope 3 does by default. I propose to disallow names starting with '@' as the Zope 3 name chooser does. I still believe this should be fixed in Zope 2, see http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/2048 But I gave up my attempt to fix this in the Zope layer because the related discussion on zope-dev ended without a clear result. I hope there are no objections against fixing this in PortalFolder's _checkId method for now. In CMF we plan to use views by default and it's quite common that normal site members are allowed to add content items. So this should be less controversial for the CMF than for Zope 2. +1. Can you implement by doing an adapter lookup, so that sites which need a different policy can change it via ZCML? Well. PortalFolder's _checkId method contains many other policy choices *and* depends on OFS.Folder's _checkId method. I guess it would be easier to implement an INameChooser adapter if this would be first done for OFS.Folder. I don't volunteer to refactor CMF based on the INameChooser concept (at least not for CMF 2.0) and don't think we should invent an other adapter for that task. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] characters allowed in content IDs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I hope there are no objections against fixing this in PortalFolder's _checkId method for now. In CMF we plan to use views by default and it's quite common that normal site members are allowed to add content items. So this should be less controversial for the CMF than for Zope 2. +1. Can you implement by doing an adapter lookup, so that sites which need a different policy can change it via ZCML? +1 on fixing it in PortalFolder, and +1 on doing it using a adapter lookup as well. Just as a reminder, this coming Sunday (3/26) I'm cutting 2.0-beta2. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEHualRAx5nvEhZLIRAp6XAJ0Z0KCqU2CFxIJNCXuzs7/cKXajlgCgi/A/ q6vt8yUywoyj+ZB+64fhF/w= =vdgU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] characters allowed in content IDs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 yuppie wrote: > Hi! > > > CMF 2.0 will ship with some browser views. Browser views have their own > prefix '@@' to avoid conflicts with content IDs. But Zope 2 doesn't > reserve those names for views as Zope 3 does by default. I propose to > disallow names starting with '@' as the Zope 3 name chooser does. > > I still believe this should be fixed in Zope 2, see > http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/2048 > > But I gave up my attempt to fix this in the Zope layer because the > related discussion on zope-dev ended without a clear result. > > > I hope there are no objections against fixing this in PortalFolder's > _checkId method for now. In CMF we plan to use views by default and it's > quite common that normal site members are allowed to add content items. > So this should be less controversial for the CMF than for Zope 2. +1. Can you implement by doing an adapter lookup, so that sites which need a different policy can change it via ZCML? Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEHuXW+gerLs4ltQ4RAsNPAJ40VgmJSjLDcgiNAG/hZnjB8KMdwwCfaO+q CK/X+OZxhhWu41PRkz9yd30= =Epr7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
