[z3-five] Re: Security and Five

[Sidnei da Silva]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:45:27PM +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| We should soon open a bug tracker (I'll do that) and make a TODO list. 
| The following things are on my mind:
| 
| - Provide some standard interfaces for Zope2 stuff, such as
| 
|   * IObjectManager (provided by OFS.ObjectManager.ObjectManager)
| 
|   * IFolder (provided by OFS.Folder.Folder)
| 
|   * ...
| 
|   These interfaces would live in a subpackage (I propose) which could
|   perfectly be optional to Five, but I think it'd be useful (e.g. for
|   getting adapters from IObjectManager to IContainer maybe).

Sounds good.

| - implement five:addMenuItem directive (or similarly named) which takes 
| care of registering a meta type with the "Add ..." drop down box in the 
| ZMI. In classic Zope2, we used to do this in __init__.py, e.g from the 
| FiveViewsDemo:
| 
| def initialize(context):
|     zcml.process('configure.zcml', package=Products.FiveViewsDemo)
| 
|     context.registerClass(
|         simplecontent.SimpleContent,
|         constructors = (simplecontent.manage_addSimpleContentForm,
|                         simplecontent.manage_addSimpleContent),
|         )

Oh, I was about to do that yesterday. Just didnt do for lack of time ;)

| I would like that 2nd statement to be in ZCML as well. Then we'd just 
| need a boilerplate initialize(context) function in all Five products. 
| And even that could be imported from Five if we make it general enough.

Yeah, thats what I had in mind.

| >Permission is in my mind the most important one; the actual view is the 
| >only thing on the view class that by default should be exposed to the 
| >outside world. Everything else should be private.
| 
| +1

Talking about that, I wanted to make setDefaultAccess('deny') the
default policy for security. Im pretty sure for zope2 the default is
setDefaultAccesss('allow'), thats why not protecting a method makes it
public, unless the prefix is 'manage_'.

<snip>

| I'm not following you here. Why would it be such a problem to support 
| the above parameters? Why wouldn't it make sense?

For *attributes* its a bit tricky, we could use that for methods though.

| -1. Zope2 should handle the permissions. That makes it more predictable 
| (I know, that can be interpreted as a joke) and more compatible with 
| products like VerboseSecurity.

And I agree with Philipp here.

| Well, we're currently mixing in the zope: and the browser: namespace in 
| five:. Maybe we should create a five-browser:?

+1 on that.

-- 
Sidnei da Silva <sidnei at awkly.org>
http://awkly.org - dreamcatching :: making your dreams come true
http://www.enfoldsystems.com
http://plone.org/about/team#dreamcatcher

If this is timesharing, give me my share right now.