Hi Charlie!
Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 02.12.2009, 20:51 Uhr, schrieb yuppie <y.2...@wcm-solutions.de>:
>
>> -1
>> The real issue here is the fact that the permission argument of the
>> adapter directive is not supported in Zope 2. Otherwise we could simply
>> use this:
>> <adapter
>> name="myproduct.content_type_factory"
>> factory=".myproduct.MyAddView"
>> permission="cmf.AddPortalContent"
>> />
>> Using the class directive instead is just a workaround for a generic
>> problem that needs a generic solution, not a new addView directive.
>
> I have to agree with you on that. But the current solution remains clunky.
> Having initially been against it I think it would be easier on the eye to
> have the security declaration (I'm assuming this would work for subclasses
> where it can be overwritten if needs be) in ContentAddFormBase until the
> permissions directive is supported. It was only from working with the new
> add form that I realised how little needs to be done to work with this.
+1
Actually it would make sense to get the permission checks in sync with
the _checkAllowed method used by add actions. And _checkAllowed has a
hardcoded check for AddPortalContent.
So it is indeed superfluous to configure the AddPortalContent permission
for each add view in ZCML. And the __call__ method of ContentAddFormBase
seems to be a good place for checking the AddPortalContent permission
*and* the isConstructionAllowed method.
>> I currently use method aliases defined for the container to customize
>> the names shown in the URL. But that's not perfect because you can't
>> define the aliases together with the portal type and you have to define
>> them for each container type used.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that - you have a situation
> where string:${folder_url}/++add++${object_id} needs changing?
Here is an example:
<object name="Document">
<property name="add_view_expr">string:${folder_url}/newDoc</property>
</object>
<object name="Folder">
<alias from="newDoc" to="++add++Document"/>
</object>
>> If you have a better idea, please let me know.
>
> I think that we could work with a sensible default which might be
> overwritable in the aliases?
The problem is: The indirection has to be done on container level, but
it would be clearer to set the alias in the type info of the new object.
Cheers,
Yuppie
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
