Dominik Huber wrote:
Excuse me late response I was busy that weekend...

Jim Fulton wrote:

I fixed that issue within the branch 'Zope3/branches/dominik-locatableadapters'
Jim, could you take a look at that please. Thank you very much in advance!


We should *only* add the location if the adapter requires a permission other
than zope public. Key rereferences don't require a permission and should not
be location proxied. Doing so makes them unpicklable.

We're going to need to fix the trusted adapter factory to do this correctly.
I suggest we create a new kind of trusted adapter factory, perhaps
"LocatingTrustedAdapter" factory that adds the location. This should
only be used when the adapter directive specified a permission other
than zope.Public. Otherwise, the original trusted adapter factory should
be used.

May be I do not understand the problem correctly:

IMO the permission declaration within the adapter directive has nothing to do
with the permission declaration wihtin the class directive that mus be used if
trusted adapters are invoked.

Example KeyReference Adapter:


<class class=".persistent.KeyReferenceToPersistent">
<require permission="zope.Public" interface=".interfaces.IKeyReference" />

That's odd. I didn't notice the class directive. I don't know why the class directive is being used here. This is one of those rare cases where we have to make the security declaration on the adapter class. (In this case, it's because the adapters are pickled, which is also unusual.)

It is not generally the case that you need to use separate security
declarations with trusted adapters.

So, during the registration of an trusted adapter factory (<adapter...) I can't do any prediction about the
permission declaration of the possible adapter instances (<class ...). Therefore we can't switch the
adapter factories within the adapter directive processing..

No, you can't do so implicitly. You can know about the permission used if a non-public permission was supplied. If a non-public permission is supplied, then it is reasonable to add the location. Otherwise, you should not try to guess.

All the same I implemented your sugestion. The following question appears:
- How should we handle NullAdapters correctly?

What do you mean by NullAdapters? Are you talking about factories that return None?

Id so, then, obviously, you should not proxy None.

IMO this solution is pretty implicit and I do not like it at all.

What solution? If you are talking about my suggestion to add a location to any adapter for whoch a non-public permission is specified, then I consider this far less impleicit than what you had before. It doesn't guess. If it knows a permission is required, it adds a location.

We should find a way to check the permission of the adapter instances inside a single trusted adapter factory:

class IntelligentTrustedAdapterFactory(TrustedAdapterFactoryMixin):

   def _customize(self, adapter, context):
       p = ProxyFactory(adapter)
       checker = getChecker(p)
       if checker is CheckerPublic:
           return adapter
          return assertLocation(adapter, context)
- performance
- in the key refernce example it would be an dedicated checker. how could I guess if such an checker is Public?

This is just too much magic. It has too many rules and is too slow.

BTW, we are not just taking about trusted adapters.  We are talking about
*any* adapter for which a non-public permission is required.


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to