- Original Message -
From: Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 06:14 PM 5/26/00 -0400, Evan Simpson wrote:
> >
> >D'oh! How 'bout if REQUEST.close() were to always do a
> >self.__dict__.clear()?
> >
>
> Are you absolutely positively sure that REQUEST.response is never accessed
> follo
At 06:14 PM 5/26/00 -0400, Evan Simpson wrote:
>
>D'oh! How 'bout if REQUEST.close() were to always do a
>self.__dict__.clear()?
>
Are you absolutely positively sure that REQUEST.response is never accessed
following REQUEST.close()? In my cursory examination of the code paths, I
wasn't sure tha
- Original Message -
From: Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >The GUF version, at least, doesn't need this drastic a fix. Adding the
> >following line to the top of guf_unauthorized should suffice:
> >
> >del request.RESPONSE.unauthorized
> >
>
> You're making the assumption that unaut
At 03:05 PM 5/26/00 -0400, Evan Simpson wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Been there, done that. Yours doesn't work either, btw. Well, actually,
>it
>> does, it's just that it causes a memory leak because it leaves an
>> unintended circular referen
- Original Message -
From: Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Been there, done that. Yours doesn't work either, btw. Well, actually,
it
> does, it's just that it causes a memory leak because it leaves an
> unintended circular reference. We've got a version that fixes the
circular
> re
At 07:11 PM 5/26/00 +1000, Stuart 'Zen' Bishop wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2000, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>> This is a problem that apparently can only be solved by replicating
>> ZPublisher's backward walk, which is the wrong thing to do because the
>> traversal will be O(n^2). Bleah. I guess we'll h
On Wed, 24 May 2000, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> This is a problem that apparently can only be solved by replicating
> ZPublisher's backward walk, which is the wrong thing to do because the
> traversal will be O(n^2). Bleah. I guess we'll have to do something like
> Stuart Bishop's backward walk in
- Original Message -
From: "Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Itamar Shtull-Trauring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Problems with LoginManager form-based login
> Make
At 05:24 PM 5/24/00 +0300, Itamar Shtull-Trauring wrote:
>"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
>
>> Make your root acl_users a LoginManager, with the loginForm there.
>> LoginManager will only allow "Anonymous" to log in if it is the root
>> acl_users. This is how standard user folders behave, and *have to* b
"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> Make your root acl_users a LoginManager, with the loginForm there.
> LoginManager will only allow "Anonymous" to log in if it is the root
> acl_users. This is how standard user folders behave, and *have to* because
> of the way manage_workspace works, unfortunately. Un
At 01:47 PM 5/24/00 +0300, Itamar Shtull-Trauring wrote:
>I add a folder, with a LoginManager in it, define Cookie Auth as only
>authntication. Now, every time I try to view the folder I get the loginForm
>asking me to login, even though Anonymous has permissions to view the
>pages. If I delete
I add a folder, with a LoginManager in it, define Cookie Auth as only
authntication. Now, every time I try to view the folder I get the loginForm
asking me to login, even though Anonymous has permissions to view the
pages. If I delete the loginForm this doesn't happen, I can view the page
with n
12 matches
Mail list logo
