On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:54:12 -0600, Jeffrey P Shell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 4/17/02 9:56 AM, "Gary Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If folks still want OrderedFolder (or, at least ordering capability) in the
>> core I'm still willing to help with that.
>For "add-to-the-core" functio
Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
> Anthony, who might have been spending too long in the bad places of SQL.
Maybe getting hooked back on the PHP too? I saw ya, that dodgy bloke in the
street, money changing hands...
*grinz*
Chris
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [
> Chris - stay in the stone age, I hear they have fire there ;-)
mmm. fre pretty.
"Page Templates burn, don't dey. Be a shame if somefing was to happen
to your nice shiny website".
Anthony, who might have been spending too long in the bad places of SQL.
Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
> deliberately-trolling-for-ChrisW-ly yrs,
:-P
Chris - stay in the stone age, I hear they have fire there ;-)
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or H
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> There is an alternative, and that is to clean up the enhanced
> enhanced virtual host monster we at Torped have done. It's based on
> sfm@imemes enhanced VHM and just like VHF is makes it possible to
> have standalone virtual hosting without strange apache magic. We
>
>>> Toby Dickenson wrote
> Do you remember what we had to type to achieve the equivalent of
> dtml-let, before dtml-let was introduced? That *was* horrible.
gee, I dunno...
has a sort of charm to it.
sheesh, it's still not as ugly as ZPT.
deliberately-trolling-for-ChrisW-ly yrs,
Anthony
--
>>> "Brian Lloyd" wrote
> We've been trying hard to adopt this bit of Zen. If you write
> REQUEST.set, you can look at it and easily see what is happening.
> Same with SESSION.set.
The other reason why I made SESSION all shouty-caps in SQLSession[*]
is to make it _very_ obvious when it's bein
On 4/17/02 9:56 AM, "Gary Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 April 2002 11:48 am, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>> Ok :) As far as "vetting" virtual host folder, my concerns
>> boil down to:
>>
>> a. dependency / requirement for ordered folder
>>
>> b. having yet another virtual h
Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
> Yup. Therefore I think that the host monster shouldn't be included. VHF
> should supercede it.
>
> If backwards compatibility is desired, add warning messages for usage and
> remove the VHM from the add box, but continue to include it in the code. :-)
Just as a passin
--On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:48:12 AM -0400 Brian Lloyd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've already learned the hard way that the existing SiteRoots
> and VirtualHostMonsters etc. confuse people. This is partly due
> to under-documentation, but it is also partly because of the
> "here, we'
At 17.04.2002 10:57 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >From the Zen of Python: "Explicit is better than implicit".
>
>We've been trying hard to adopt this bit of Zen. If you write
>REQUEST.set, you can look at it and easily see what is happening.
>Same with SESSION.set.
>
>If you're looking at as a ne
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:47:49 -0400
"Brian Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up
> some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals
> and get to a final "plan". I didn't get much (any?) response :(
>
Hello Brian,
just to give some
On Tuesday 16 April 2002 03:44 pm, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> > > ...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up
> > > some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals
> > > and get to a final "plan". I didn't get much (any?) response :(
By the way, Brian, if I can with the remaining
> > ...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up
> > some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals
> > and get to a final "plan". I didn't get much (any?) response :(
> >
>
> I am, as the author of the dtml-set tag, of course willing to
> commit to the
> implementation
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:47:49PM -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> ...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up
> some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals
> and get to a final "plan". I didn't get much (any?) response :(
>
I am, as the author of the dtml-set tag, of co
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:16:35 -0400, Jim Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip
>address like naked ZServers can do,
>to
>
>if request.has_key('HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'):
> addr=request['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR']
>elif r
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 06:59:38PM +0200, Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
> Jim Washington wrote:
>
>
> >2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip
> >address like naked ZServers can do,
> >
> >In lib/python/AccessControl/User.py, around line 1116,
> >change
> >
> > if req
Jim Washington wrote:
> 2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip
> address like naked ZServers can do,
>
> In lib/python/AccessControl/User.py, around line 1116,
> change
>
>if request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
> addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
>
> to
>
>
Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR
Code for this is pretty simple:
modify 2 files, ZServer/medusa/http_server.py and
lib/python/AccessControl/User.py
1. To put the proxy-passed ip address in the zserver log,
Around line 269 in ZServer/medusa/http_server.py, add a method
http_request::client_
At 15:12 10-04-2002 +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
>User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope
>/Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects
>outside that folder, thanks to aq_inContextOf
>
>Can he create links to objects outside that folder?
>
N
At 10:06 10-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>What is wrong with leaving this as an add-on product? Why does
>it _need_ to be a part of the core at all? Useful products are
>useful, whether or not they "come with Zope", and there are
>plenty of very useful products that don't come built in.
>
At 14:38 09-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>> As in Unix, a hard link has different semantics from a soft link. I'm
>> thinking of the "hard link" semantics.
>
>Comparing it to Unix hard links is fine, but Unix doesn't
>use Acquisition to handle security, so the comparison is
>not apples-
At 01:30 10-04-2002 +0300, Myroslav Opyr wrote:
>Ok. Let's find out what we have and what we want. First of all we have
>strict hierarchy in ZODB where each object appears only once in the
>tree. Thus to access to an object it is only one way from root down to
>an object through containers.
>
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:30:56 +0300, Myroslav Opyr
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is Anonymous able to get out of the shared
>object to secure environment?
User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope
/Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects
outs
> The idea is to allow user to specify several points of presence (pop)
> for an object. Does this break security? Probably yes, but in what case?
> If an object from higly secure envionment appeared somewhere in
> Anonymous zone, what then? Yes, Anonymous is able to alter object. But
> there
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>> Both me and Myroslav Opyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> are quite
>> commited to do the proposed "Object Links/References". Although
>> from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that
>> it was one of the "controversial enough" to be a Vetted item :-)
>>
>> Anyways I'm
> Both me and Myroslav Opyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> are quite
> commited to do the proposed "Object Links/References". Although
> from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that
> it was one of the "controversial enough" to be a Vetted item :-)
>
> Anyways I'm commited to do it.
At 13:47 09-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up
>some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals
>and get to a final "plan". I didn't get much (any?) response :(
>
>But there are still a lot of things on the proposed features
>t
28 matches
Mail list logo
