The idea is to allow user to specify several points of presence (pop)
for an object. Does this break security? Probably yes, but in what case?
If an object from higly secure envionment appeared somewhere in
Anonymous zone, what then? Yes, Anonymous is able to alter object. But
there was
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:30:56 +0300, Myroslav Opyr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is Anonymous able to get out of the shared
object to secure environment?
User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope
/Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects
outside
At 01:30 10-04-2002 +0300, Myroslav Opyr wrote:
Ok. Let's find out what we have and what we want. First of all we have
strict hierarchy in ZODB where each object appears only once in the
tree. Thus to access to an object it is only one way from root down to
an object through containers.
The
At 10:06 10-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
What is wrong with leaving this as an add-on product? Why does
it _need_ to be a part of the core at all? Useful products are
useful, whether or not they come with Zope, and there are
plenty of very useful products that don't come built in.
I
At 15:12 10-04-2002 +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope
/Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects
outside that folder, thanks to aq_inContextOf
Can he create links to objects outside that folder?
No, he
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Both me and Myroslav Opyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] are quite
commited to do the proposed Object Links/References. Although
from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that
it was one of the controversial enough to be a Vetted item :-)
Anyways I'm commited to do
