> You told us that you will be refining Zope 2.6 plan. 
> ProposedFeatures table contains an " Implement links 
> (object references)" entry by Mario Valente. I've created 
> SoftLink proposal in ProposalsWiki . These works appear 
> related. We (Mario and me) discussed and decided that 
> we can dedicate some efforts to make it working (Mario 
> has working code already). The plan is to release Patch-like 
> product for Zope 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 to get feedback. And to 
> incorporate functionality into Zope 2.6 without patching 
> functionality.
> Please give us your recommendations / feedback / instructions for us,

To be honest, I'm a little worried about the approach. Links 
can be very, very hard to get right (which is why they are not 
in the core now), especially with regard to security issues. 

Creating an object that "impersonates" another object is tough, 
because there a potentially unknown number of contracts that 
the impersonator must fulfill. This usually leads to problems :(

For the SoftLink proposal in particular, the main problem you 
note in the proposal is that you want to avoid 404's when 
people go to a resource that has been moved. It seems to me 
that the best way to address that problem is to have a 
"RedirectObject" that you could add with the name of the 
object that was moved. It would _not_ try to impersonate 
the moved object, but when you went to "view" the object, 
you would be automatically redirected to the new location. 

That would avoid a lot of the problems of the link approach, 
with little overhead.

Note that I'm not saying that object links are not a valid 
requirement, but it sounds like the problem you want to 
solve is definitely different than Mario's. In many ways, 
the "correct" required behavior of a link depends on what 
you expect to be able to do with it (the problem you are 
trying to solve).

I can easily imagine that "right" behavior of a link if 
your main goal is to avoid 404s will _not_ be right if 
you are using the link in other ways. For example, if you 
went to a URL that had been moved, what is the right 
"context" that it should render itself in? I highly suspect 
that the right context is the place that it was moved to, 
rather than the context where the link lives (redirect 
semantics). That is basically the opposite of another 
possible usage of a link, where you would want to use the 
link to "virtually include" an object into a different 

I submit that trying to do both is too complex 
and probably too insecure as well (as managers of security 
would have to evaluate N possible security scenarios, most 
of which are not readily visible to them at the time they 
are setting up security).

I think that the "RedirectObject" approach could sidestep 
all of these issues and provide an incremental step while 
still solving your problem.

Brian Lloyd        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
V.P. Engineering   540.361.1716      
Zope Corporation   http://www.zope.com

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to