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 )
