Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> Are you talking about 'ProtocolAccessibility'? It's still
> there (though Jim has done some rearranging of things there
> lately)...
http://www.zope.org//Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/ProtocolAccessibility
So it is :-)
Comments are still welcome...
Chris
>
>
> I did have a proposal for just this on dev.zope.org, but I see someone
> has deleted it :-(
>
> cheers,
>
> Chris
Are you talking about 'ProtocolAccessibility'? It's still
there (though Jim has done some rearranging of things there
lately)...
Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Softw
Dieter Maurer wrote:
>
>There are objects, that should be usable by Anonymous
>inside DTML but should not be viewable over the
>web (as they will only confuse).
>All page components (such as "standard_html_header/footer")
>fall into this category.
Totally agree... this has bu
Steve Alexander wrote:
>
> On a related issue, what about other dtml snippets that people generally
> don't want as web accessible, such as standard_html_header ?
>
> On my pie-in-the-sky zope wishlist:
I did have a proposal for just this on dev.zope.org, but I see someone
has deleted it :-(
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> FWIW, I agree that adding access method into the security
> mix would add a great deal of complexity. It may turn out
> to be necessary in the future, but I'm not yet convinced
> of that.
Well, it's come up quite a few tiems, would it really be that bad? :-S
cheers,
Chri
> -Original Message-
> From: Dieter Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Toby Dickenson writes:
> > > ... protocol specific access rights ...
> > Please No.
> >
> > Zope security is complex enough without having to worry about
> > different security settings depending on how a method
[Dieter Maurer]
| There are objects, that should be usable by Anonymous inside DTML
| but should not be viewable over the web (as they will only confuse).
| All page components (such as "standard_html_header/footer") fall
| into this category.
Do you have any idea of how this could be done nicel
Toby Dickenson writes:
> > ... protocol specific access rights ...
> Please No.
>
> Zope security is complex enough without having to worry about
> different security settings depending on how a method is accessed.
> (And we should have a lower tolerance for complexity when it applies
> to
> >This is something that has come up before. I propose
> >that the real problem here is that 'objectIds' should
> >not be web-traversable.
> >
> >I have, in fact, proposed this before. It caused a bit
> >of grumbling among people using xml-rpc, who were using
> >objectIds remotely, so we neve
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:11:51 -0500, "Brian Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This is something that has come up before. I propose
>that the real problem here is that 'objectIds' should
>not be web-traversable.
>
>I have, in fact, proposed this before. It caused a bit
>of grumbling among peop
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Steve Alexander writes:
> > On my pie-in-the-sky zope wishlist:
> >
> > What I'd like is a new tab for zope objects that allows me to say which
> > protocols the object is accessible from, and what to do if not.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> >access route
Steve Alexander writes:
> On my pie-in-the-sky zope wishlist:
>
> What I'd like is a new tab for zope objects that allows me to say which
> protocols the object is accessible from, and what to do if not.
>
> For example:
>
>access route accessible?action
>
>
[Brian Lloyd]
| This comes up often enough that I'm inclined to do
| something about it for 2.3. I propose that objectIds
| (and objectValues) will not be directly accessible
| via the Web in 2.3. For xml-rpc applications, it should
| be a simple enough task to create a Python Script (or
| eve
Paul Erickson wrote:
>
> If it is an issue for XML-RPC users, maybe there should be a
> "Traversable" permission on Folder objects that could default to not
> allowing web-traversal, but allowing it to be enabled if desired.
>
> Would this affect FTP access to folders?
>
> -Paul
>
I agree. Tha
If it is an issue for XML-RPC users, maybe there should be a
"Traversable" permission on Folder objects that could default to not
allowing web-traversal, but allowing it to be enabled if desired.
Would this affect FTP access to folders?
-Paul
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> This is something that has
On 18 Dec 2000, at 14:11, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> This comes up often enough that I'm inclined to do
> something about it for 2.3. I propose that objectIds
> (and objectValues) will not be directly accessible
> via the Web in 2.3. For xml-rpc applications, it should
> be a simple enough task to cr
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> This comes up often enough that I'm inclined to do
> something about it for 2.3. I propose that objectIds
> (and objectValues) will not be directly accessible
> via the Web in 2.3. For xml-rpc applications, it should
> be a simple enough task to create a Python Script (o
> > If you type in http://www.zope.org/Members/objectIds you get a list of
> > all Members. Although it is a useful feature.. ;) .. I can't really
> > see why objectIds should be available for everyone, at any given time.
> >
> > Is this a bug or a feature?
> I was able to do this as anonymous
18 matches
Mail list logo
