-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> yuppie wrote at 2006-3-15 11:23 +0100:
>
>>...
>>Zope 2's checkValidId makes sure this doesn't happen with Zope 2 folder
>>methods, Zope 3's NameChooser makes sure this doesn't happen with Zope 3
>>folder views. Even the bad_i
yuppie wrote at 2006-3-15 11:23 +0100:
> ...
>Zope 2's checkValidId makes sure this doesn't happen with Zope 2 folder
>methods, Zope 3's NameChooser makes sure this doesn't happen with Zope 3
>folder views. Even the bad_id-patch described above doesn't allow to
>override folder methods.
Maybe,
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote at 2006-3-13 10:21 -0500:
... silly id restrictions ...
Here's my current monkeypatch to Zope to unrestrict a good number of
characters:
def patch_objectmanager_badid():
""" Causes Zope to be less res
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote at 2006-3-13 10:21 -0500:
> > ... silly id restrictions ...
> >Here's my current monkeypatch to Zope to unrestrict a good number of
> >characters:
> >
> >def patch_objectmanager_badid():
> > """ Causes Zope to be less restrictive in the set of charac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:06 PM, yuppie wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not concerned about my own app code. I know the problem and how
>>> to fix it.
>>>
>>> And I'm not concerned ab
Hi Paul!
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:06:28PM +0100, yuppie wrote:
I'm concerned about the people we encourage to use Five technology.
Views are a major feature of Five. Should we warn people not to use
views? Or instruct them how to patch Zope 2 to protect views against
be
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:06:28PM +0100, yuppie wrote:
> I'm concerned about the people we encourage to use Five technology.
> Views are a major feature of Five. Should we warn people not to use
> views? Or instruct them how to patch Zope 2 to protect views against
> being masked by content IDs
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:06 PM, yuppie wrote:
I'm not concerned about my own app code. I know the problem and how
to fix it.
And I'm not concerned about people like you who monkeypatch that
code. You know that monkeypatching is always on your own risk and
you know how to modify your monkey pa
Chris McDonough wrote at 2006-3-13 10:21 -0500:
> ... silly id restrictions ...
>Here's my current monkeypatch to Zope to unrestrict a good number of
>characters:
>
>def patch_objectmanager_badid():
> """ Causes Zope to be less restrictive in the set of characters it
> accepts as valid wi
yuppie wrote at 2006-3-13 10:09 +0100:
> ...
>I don't understand that differentiation. Five is part of Zope 2, so each
>Five issue is also a Zope 2 issue.
But you can fix this issue either in "Five" or in "ObjectManager".
You propose a change in "ObjectManager" which affects not Five
use of Zope
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:06 PM, yuppie wrote:
I'm not concerned about my own app code. I know the problem and
how to fix it.
And I'm not concerned about people like you who monkeypatch that
code. You know that monkeypatching is always on yo
Hi Chris!
Chris McDonough wrote:
I doubt this will break a significant amount of code. The restriction
was removed 5 months ago and AFAICS it was removed to allow email
addresses as IDs. That use case will not be broken if we disallow
again IDs starting with '@'.
It seems that you can rea
I doubt this will break a significant amount of code. The
restriction was removed 5 months ago and AFAICS it was removed to
allow email addresses as IDs. That use case will not be broken if
we disallow again IDs starting with '@'.
It seems that you can reasonably easily apply the "@" rest
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
and should be fixed in Zope 2.8, 2.9 and trunk.
We'd be changing Zope 2's behaviour (not fixing a Five bug), I would
therefore vote for making this change on the Zope 2 trunk only.
I'd be apt to not further restrict the set of ident
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
In Zope 3 the NameChooser makes sure you can't use content IDs starting
with '+' or '@'.
Zope 2 doesn't allow '+' in content IDs (actually the error message says
the ID contains characters illegal in URLs), but you can use content IDs
like '@@edit.
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 02:46 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Here's what we could do: We factor the name validation part in ObjectManager
> (which is _checkId) out to a namechooser adapter. Five already has one in
> Five.browser.adding. Then, we can also provide an optional namechooser ada
Chris McDonough wrote:
> >> and should be fixed in Zope 2.8, 2.9 and trunk.
> >
> > We'd be changing Zope 2's behaviour (not fixing a Five bug), I would
> > therefore vote for making this change on the Zope 2 trunk only.
>
> I'd be apt to not further restrict the set of identifiers an OFS content
>
> yuppie wrote:
>> Zope 2 doesn't allow '+' in content IDs (actually the error message says
>> the ID contains characters illegal in URLs), but you can use content IDs
>> like '@@edit.html'. If the lookup order is changed as proposed
>> (http://codespeak.net/pipermail/z3-five/2006q1/001186.html) th
yuppie wrote:
> In Zope 3 the NameChooser makes sure you can't use content IDs starting
> with '+' or '@'.
>
> Zope 2 doesn't allow '+' in content IDs (actually the error message says
> the ID contains characters illegal in URLs), but you can use content IDs
> like '@@edit.html'. If the lookup ord
19 matches
Mail list logo
