Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
- In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name
Grok also has a grok.Permission you can subclass, and those subclasses
can also be passed to grok.require().
- In code, e.g. when doing a checkPermission() call, use the Zope 2 name
- With
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
- In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name
Grok also has a grok.Permission you can subclass, and those subclasses
can also be passed to grok.require().
I know, but I kind of consider creating permissions by
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
Finally, there is not total parity between Zope 2 security and Zope 3
security. Zope 2 cannot protect 'property set', for example.
Since Zope 2.8, Zope 2 could in principle -- and until quite recently
I thought, it really can: it only fails
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
...
3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the
permission name, falling back on the current behaviour of using the
passed permission name directly.
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
Finally, there is not total parity between Zope 2 security and Zope 3
security. Zope 2 cannot protect 'property set', for example.
Since Zope 2.8, Zope 2 could in principle -- and until quite recently
I thought, it
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I've now implemented 1 and 2 on trunk, since they seem pretty
non-controversial.
1) Use an event handler to ensure that any permission / declared in
ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
for this here which we could put in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I've not done this yet:
3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the
permission name, falling back on the current behaviour
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I've not done this yet:
3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the
permission name, falling back on
Hi all,
For a while now, people have had to contend with two ways of doing
certain things, depending on whether the code they are working with is
in Zope 2 land or Zope 3 land. We're getting closer to a world where
people don't need to be so intimately aware of the differences,
especially
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:31, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
I haven't had my dead deeep down in the Zope 2 security for three
years, so I'm a bit fuzzy on how it works, but all this sounds like a
good step forward.
+1
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:31, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Use an event handler to ensure that any permission / declared in
ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
for this here which we could put in Products.Five with ease.
Martin Aspeli wrote:
So, here is what I'd like to propose, ideally for Zope 2.12:
1) Use an event handler to ensure that any permission / declared in
ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
for this here which we could put in Products.Five with ease.
+1
12 matches
Mail list logo
