At 10:54 AM 7/25/00 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>I think that this is _definitely_ the kind of thing that
>should be done in the fishbowl on dev.zope.org.
It's there now. See:
http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/UserProgrammableSecurityObjects
It covers in full, I think, the issues t
At 10:54 AM 7/25/00 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>I think that this is _definitely_ the kind of thing that
>should be done in the fishbowl on dev.zope.org. Why? Because
>while it may be a "minor patch" in terms of lines of code, just
>applying the patch causes a number of problems that have noth
> >>Hm. I don't think this could be classed as a "minor"
> change, however,
> >>since it has impact on ownership, for example. What's the
> path of the user
> >>folder which is above "/", for example? The whole thing is
> useless if
> >>these extra users can't be owners, and the ownership
>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 20:48:28 -0500, "Phillip J. Eby"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 01:27 PM 7/19/00 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>>Hm. I don't think this could be classed as a "minor" change, however,
>>since it has impact on ownership, for example. What's the path of the user
>>folder which
At 01:27 PM 7/19/00 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>Hm. I don't think this could be classed as a "minor" change, however,
>since it has impact on ownership, for example. What's the path of the user
>folder which is above "/", for example? The whole thing is useless if
>these extra users can't b
