Hi Jim

Behalf Of Jim Fulton
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 11:09 PM
> To: Garrett Smith
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zope3-dev@zope.org; Dominik Huber
> Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] Form framework, adapters and pau
> Garrett Smith wrote:
> > Jim Fulton wrote:
> > 
> >>Garrett Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't understand the pushback against location proxying
> >>>security-proxied objects. LocationProxy does actually play 
> well with
> >>>security-proxied objects.
> >>
> >>That was not our experience in the recent past.  I'll have 
> to document
> >>the problems, assuming that I can reproduce them.
> > 
> > 
> > Are you referring to the problems Gary ran into when he modified the
> > form setup machinery? I ran into the same problems in our 
> application,
> > which led to the mods to make LocationProxy work with 
> security proxied
> > objects.
> OK
> >>I wonder if it would make sense for the trusted adapter machinery to
> >>simply set __parent__ on adapters if either the adapter provides
> >>ILocation 
> >>*or* the adapter doesn't already have a __parent__.  This 
> would solve
> >>the problem and avoid the proxy.
> > 
> > 
> > Apart from the "works/doesn't work" issue (your previous 
> point), are you
> > concerned that we'll see LocationProxy popping up whenever we need
> > location-sensitive lookups? Would that be a bad thing?
> >
>  >
> > I've found LocationProxy to be essential providing location-specific
> > lookup capability in more than forms. E.g. I often location-proxy
> > objects in events where handlers perform operations that want local
> > authentication facilities.
> My main objection is that it seem too implicit to me.

Yes, I think also the first time this is to implicit. But
after many discussions with Dominik I changed my mind.

We have two solutions.

a) Use ILocation as default in adapters
b) proxy location if needed

I think since we allow location less content, the solution
a) is easier right now. But I'm sure we run into this problem
more the once in the future.

Solution b) provide ILocation in adapters as default is also
not this bad, but I think that this is most the time a overhead
and needs some basic conceptual changes.
> My objection is that we would be doing something for the adapter
> that it should have done for itself.  With this change every adapter
> that doesn't provide ILocation will get proxied even if the adapter
> is actually public.
> I'm willing to give in on this though.

btw, it could be that this is not the last solution.
I think after some time and more development with 
site specific components there will be a better 
understanding what's the best practice. Then we can 
decide if we really need ILocation in adapters or if
this is a good concept.

> If y'all want to change this back, I'll go along as
> long as it doesn't break things. :)

Of corse

Roger Ineichen

> Jim
> -- 
> Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
> CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
> Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev@zope.org
> Unsub: 
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to