> Charlie Clark wrote:
>> Am 02.12.2009, 20:51 Uhr, schrieb yuppie
>>> 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.
> 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.
This change is now checked in: http://svn.zope.org/?rev=106203&view=rev
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests