On Apr 7, 2005, at 6:50, Andreas Jung wrote:
Even small modifications to the security machinery tend to
end up in lots of problems.
The latest prominent example: the changes introduced with
Zope 2.7.3: It took two releases (until 2.7.5) and
more than 6 months (at least in my memory) before everythi
On Apr 7, 2005, at 1:45, Florent Guillaume wrote:
After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden
SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working,
it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it
should take precedence (and deactivate
--On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 21:59 Uhr +0200 Dieter Maurer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2005-4-6 08:33 -0400:
I very much want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
Zope 3's security architecture is far more robust, but it is different
in some significant ways:
Even s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:49 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Paul Winkler wrote:
> > i.e. will I still write:
> >
> > security.declareProtected(SomePermission, 'foo')
> > def foo(self):
> > ...
>
> That will work, and I don't see a need to deprecat
After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden
SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working,
it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it
should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think
it's a good idea
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2005-4-6 08:33 -0400:
I very much want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
Zope 3's security architecture is far more robust, but it is different
in some significant ways:
Even small modifications to the security machinery tend to
end up in lot
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
...
Is this related in any way to having a dictionary or callable in
__allow_access_to_unprotected_subobjects__?
I ask because we just started abusing this one *wink*.
I believe so. I don't remember the details.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pytho
Jim Fulton wrote at 2005-4-6 08:33 -0400:
>
>I very much want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
>Zope 3's security architecture is far more robust, but it is different
>in some significant ways:
Even small modifications to the security machinery tend to
end up in lots of problems.
The schedule for the next Zope release is a follows:
2.7.6 b1: April 13th
2.7.6 RC1: April 20th
2.7.6 final: April 27th
Although 2.7.5 had been relased lately, yesterdays hotfix and another bug
justify a new release this month.
Andreas
pgplUhIIumTkV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
Andreas Jung wrote:
I just would like to thank everyone working on the Five integration
with Zope 2.8. It's really easy and fun to work with views, view
classes, adapters and interfaces in a Zope 2 environment. I've always
tried to get around Zope 3 somehow but now I am at the point where I
am real
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:49:19PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >i.e. will I still write:
| >
| >security.declareProtected(SomePermission, 'foo')
| >def foo(self):
| >...
|
| That will work, and I don't see a need to deprecate it.
| Eventually, though, I expect products to migrate to
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:49:19PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >> o No support for key-based access control
> >
> >
> >Don't know what that is.
>
> It was/is possible to control access to mapping items
> based on item values (e.g. key values).
OK... I've never used this AFAIK.
Anybody know if it's
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:33:39AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
I very much want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
Zope 3's security architecture is far more robust, but it is different
in some significant ways:
(snip)
Will this all be "under the hood"?
i.e. will Produ
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 05:55:18PM +0200, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
| >svn proplist -v utilities lib/python
|
| Well, I was trying to *avoid* making a checkout to see that detail,
| that's all...
svn proplist -v svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/trunk/utilities
Properties on 'svn://svn.zope.org/re
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:33:39AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> I very much want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
> Zope 3's security architecture is far more robust, but it is different
> in some significant ways:
(snip)
Will this all be "under the hood"?
i.e. will Products have t
On Apr 6, 2005, at 17:50, Tim Peters wrote:
[Jens Vagelpohl]
So I was clicking through svn.zope.org trying to find the ZODB code in
question but couldn't, simply because I did not know what tag/branch
the version stitched into Zope 2.8a2 is. How can you tell from looking
at the Zope code on http://
[Jens Vagelpohl]
> So I was clicking through svn.zope.org trying to find the ZODB code in
> question but couldn't, simply because I did not know what tag/branch
> the version stitched into Zope 2.8a2 is. How can you tell from looking
> at the Zope code on http://svn.zope.org which ZODB branch/tag i
Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 00:45, Pavel Zaitsev wrote:
> > If you look above I had problems with zope creating temp files, as I am
> > using Mac OS X and Webdav to Zope
> > mounted on the same machine. There is some race condition on locks in
> > mach kern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 15:00, Tim Peters wrote:
>
>>> LOL looks like someone left a pdb.set_trace() in the
>>> ZODB.Connection.modifiedInVersion method...
>>
>>
>> Yup, that got checked in by mistake during the recent ZODB spri
--On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 9:32 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Chris wants to backport it to 2.7 x; I'm opposed. Your call.
If it does not change the default behaviour we have in 2.7.5... why not...
Andreas
pgp7uZ3q8EeTC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>
> --On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 10:16 Uhr +0100 Chris Withers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> It is really up to
>>> Andreas whether or not to accept such a change on the 2.7 line.
>>
>>
>> Andreas, whatcha think?
>
>
On Apr 6, 2005, at 15:00, Tim Peters wrote:
LOL looks like someone left a pdb.set_trace() in the
ZODB.Connection.modifiedInVersion method...
Yup, that got checked in by mistake during the recent ZODB sprint at
PyCon.
It's repaired on Zope trunk / ZODB 3.4a2, so try the trunk instead.
Another thi
[Santi Camps]
>> I'm just trying recent Zope 2.8 a2 and I'm not able to import any
>> .zexp file. At the begin I thought that it could be caused by the
>> zexp I was trying to import, but default Examples.zexp also cause the
>> same error. I've tried with and without ZEO, and with and without
>
--On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 14:22 Uhr +0200 Jens Vagelpohl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 14:11, Santi Camps wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just trying recent Zope 2.8 a2 and I'm not able to import any
.zexp file. At the begin I thought that it could be caused by the
zexp I was trying to i
I very much want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
Zope 3's security architecture is far more robust, but it is different
in some significant ways:
- It protects names not values. This means that you protect
how you access things, not the things themselves.
- It doesn't provide key
On Apr 6, 2005, at 14:11, Santi Camps wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just trying recent Zope 2.8 a2 and I'm not able to import any
.zexp file. At the begin I thought that it could be caused by the
zexp I was trying to import, but default Examples.zexp also cause the
same error. I've tried with and witho
Hi all,
I'm just trying recent Zope 2.8 a2 and I'm not able to import any .zexp
file. At the begin I thought that it could be caused by the zexp I was
trying to import, but default Examples.zexp also cause the same error.
I've tried with and without ZEO, and with and without debug mode, alwa
--On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 10:16 Uhr +0100 Chris Withers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is really up to
Andreas whether or not to accept such a change on the 2.7 line.
Andreas, whatcha think?
Sorry, I have to catch up with this thread. I thought the problem was
solved by
Tres new configurati
Tres Seaver wrote:
Since this is a bug, and it looks like it's going to be fixed with a
config option, would anyone mind if I ported this code to the 2.7 branch
with the option set to do whatever 2.7.5 does?
- -0. This change is not a bugfix
If removing bare try: excepts: is a bugfix, then this i
29 matches
Mail list logo
