"R. David Murray" wrote:
> > 1) Why does SimpleItem still have this?! Since so much, IIRC, is derived
> > from SimpleItem.Item, surely this goes very much against the grain of
> > 'everything should be protected unless I say otherwise'?
>
> If you read the docs about the 2.2 security changes, you
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Chris Withers wrote:
> Toby Dickenson wrote:
> > Almost all zope-manageable classes (and certainly Folders, that Dieter
> > mentioned) use the old rule. This happens because they derive from
> > SimpleItem.Item, which has __allow_access_to_unprotected_subobjects__=1
>
> 1) Wh
Toby Dickenson wrote:
> Almost all zope-manageable classes (and certainly Folders, that Dieter
> mentioned) use the old rule. This happens because they derive from
> SimpleItem.Item, which has __allow_access_to_unprotected_subobjects__=1
1) Why does SimpleItem still have this?! Since so much, IIR
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 10:38:44 +0100, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> > I wonder why starting folders with _ is so bad in Zope?
>
>> In the time, when everything was allowed what was not explicitely
>> forbidden, an easy way was necessary to forbid access. Jim
>>
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> > I wonder why starting folders with _ is so bad in Zope?
> In the time, when everything was allowed what was not explicitely
> forbidden, an easy way was necessary to forbid access. Jim
> (and, therefore, Zope) used:
>
> anything starting with "_" is private: no DTML a
