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-to-apples :) 
>

  No its not, agreed. But actually, when you create a hard
 link to an executable file and from within that executable
 request the path, you'll get different paths. Crappy way of
 doing security, but there's lots of people doing it :-)

  I guess you could call that acquisition :-)


>Security in particular is very concerned with *containment* 
>path (rather than just acquisition path) in order to prevent 
>"stealing" access through acquisition wrappers. Having objects 
>with more than one "place" may introduce much the same problem, 
>so we'll need to write up in detail the effects on the security 
>machinery or its application to domain objects (or if the security
>machinery does not need to change, we need to spell out why).
>

  I wouldnt mind doing this, but I think its out of my league....

  C U!

  -- MV



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

Reply via email to