Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [snip]
>> - In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name
>
> Grok also has a grok.Permission you can subclass, and those subclasses
> can also be passed to grok.require().
I know, but I kind of consider creating permissio
Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> - In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name
Grok also has a grok.Permission you can subclass, and those subclasses
can also be passed to grok.require().
> - In code, e.g. when doing a checkPermission() call, use the Zope 2 name
> - With
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> I've not done this yet:
>>
>>> 3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
>>> look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the
>>> permission name
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I've not done this yet:
>
>> 3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
>> look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the
>> permission name, falling back on the current beh
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I've now implemented 1 and 2 on trunk, since they seem pretty
non-controversial.
> 1) Use an event handler to ensure that any declared in
> ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
> for this here which we could put in Products.Five with eas
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
>>
>> Finally, there is not total parity between Zope 2 security and Zope 3
>> security. Zope 2 cannot protect 'property set', for example.
>
> Since Zope 2.8, Zope 2 could in principle -- and until quite recently
> I thoug
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
> ...
> 3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
>look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the
>permission name, falling back on the current behaviour of using the
>passed permission name directl
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
>
>Finally, there is not total parity between Zope 2 security and Zope 3
>security. Zope 2 cannot protect 'property set', for example.
Since Zope 2.8, Zope 2 could in principle -- and until quite recently
I thought, it really can: it only fails w
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> So, here is what I'd like to propose, ideally for Zope 2.12:
>>
>> 1) Use an event handler to ensure that any declared in
>> ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
>> for this here which we could put in Products.
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> So, here is what I'd like to propose, ideally for Zope 2.12:
>
> 1) Use an event handler to ensure that any declared in
> ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
> for this here which we could put in Products.Five with ease.
+1
> 2) Emi
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:31, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> 1) Use an event handler to ensure that any declared in
> ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
> for this here which we could put in Products.Five with ease.
>
> http://dev.plone.org/collective/browser/collecti
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:31, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Thoughts?
I haven't had my dead deeep down in the Zope 2 security for three
years, so I'm a bit fuzzy on how it works, but all this sounds like a
good step forward.
+1
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.c
Hi all,
For a while now, people have had to contend with two ways of doing
certain things, depending on whether the code they are working with is
in "Zope 2 land" or "Zope 3 land". We're getting closer to a world where
people don't need to be so intimately aware of the differences,
especially
13 matches
Mail list logo
