Thanks for the tips, it was the missing wrapper.
I'm quite a newbie in Python programming, so please forgive me.
I've got two other questions:
1. Say we have a Class A with an attribute myObjects which is just a
list.
Now, I'd like to write my own Class B(A) - it extends A.
But, in Class B, myOb
> And it's clearly worse performance wise for the typical use case,
> because you now get a load of rewrite stuff for any URI which has to
> be processed.
Using mod_ssl the following works pretty well:
SSLRequireSSL
No rewrite or mod_rewrite overhead. You simply get a 403 if you don't
use htt
Jamie Heilman wrote:
Well its true you can't prevent users from compromising their
credentials, but you can prevent users from coming in the wrong door,
as it were. I'm not clear on which one you really hope to accomplish,
though from your proposed modifications it looks like the latter.
Preventi
Oliver Bleutgen wrote at 2003-1-16 15:42 +0100:
> One thing that bothers me is that I cannot reliably (as in "in a generic
> way which always works") prevent users from sending their authentication
> unencrypted.
> The only ideas I have to tackle this without modifying zope itself are
>
>
Brian R Brinegar wrote at 2003-1-15 16:37 -0500:
> What effect do ZODB Writes have on Performance? We use Zope in an
> environment where users are constantly updating and maintaining content
> within the ZODB. Do these writes to the Database slow down overall
> performance?
When you are using F
Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've seen it before, but I don't think FAM is able to monitor an
entire directory tree. It only monitors individual files. I'd really
like to be wrong. :-)
I think you are wrong, because the manpage (for IRIX) says otherwise.
Additionally, it wou
For the record, by following the same pattern it should be possible to
implement a class that responds to too, by
implementing __getitem__
On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 06:00, Bjorn Stabell wrote:
> Thanks Leo, this is very helpful. It should probably be in a HOWTO
> somewhere. :)
>
> > -Original M
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
On the filesystem, the problem seems much more difficult, since there
are no transactions. You'd like the kernel to send Zope a message
anytime someone modifies a file in a certain hierarchy, but that
would require kernel h
Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
On the filesystem, the problem seems much more difficult, since there
are no transactions. You'd like the kernel to send Zope a message
anytime someone modifies a file in a certain hierarchy, but that would
require kernel hacking.
FWIW, since I
Shane Hathaway wrote:
On the filesystem, the problem seems much more difficult, since there
are no transactions. You'd like the kernel to send Zope a message
anytime someone modifies a file in a certain hierarchy, but that would
require kernel hacking.
FWIW, since I had the same problem some
Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
> One thing that bothers me is that I cannot reliably (as in "in a generic
> way which always works") prevent users from sending their authentication
> unencrypted.
Well its true you can't prevent users from compromising their
credentials, but you can prevent users from co
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
performance. There needs to be a way for applications that modify
the database to tell Zope about the modification, so Zope can reset
its caches.
But, IIRC, the last time this was discussed on a mailing list you had
some co
seb bacon wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
performance. There needs to be a way for applications that modify
the database to tell Zope about the modification, so Zope can reset
its caches.
But, IIRC, the last time this was discussed on a mailing l
Lars,
I believe that for security validation to work the object you return has to
be acquisition wrapped. Try something like (untested):
def _getOb(self, id):
return self._secretList[id].__of__(self)
HTH,
Stefan
--On Donnerstag, 16. Jänner 2003 16:51 +0100 Lars Heber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Sounds like an acquisition problem to me. Are the objects wrapped?
Try
def _getOb(..):
...
return someobject.__of__(self)
Lars Heber wrote:
Hi zopers,
my class has a list with several objects in it.
When calling my self written _getOb() method, I want to return one of
these objects.
Bu
Hi zopers,
my class has a list with several objects in it.
When calling my self written _getOb() method, I want to return one of
these objects.
But I get an Unauthorized...
When I put an object of the same type into a normal class attribute
(self.dummyObject), return of that object from _getOb()
One thing that bothers me is that I cannot reliably (as in "in a generic
way which always works") prevent users from sending their authentication
unencrypted.
The only ideas I have to tackle this without modifying zope itself are
- customize all pages which need authentication to check for "http
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Yes, but I want to hear other people's ideas first. What do you think?
I just remember liking aformentioned ideas :-)
Chris
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cr
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
performance. There needs to be a way for applications that modify the
database to tell Zope about the modification, so Zope can reset its
caches.
But, IIRC, the last time this was discussed on a mailing list you had
some cool ideas to sovle the pro
Shane Hathaway wrote:
performance. There needs to be a way for applications that modify the
database to tell Zope about the modification, so Zope can reset its caches.
But, IIRC, the last time this was discussed on a mailing list you had some cool
ideas to sovle the problem, right?
*grinz*
C
Writes are slower than reads, but the real bottleneck is likely to be
your application, not the ZODB. Commonly ZODB writes take place within
a busy transaction, including catalog updates, transformations, etc.
Brian R Brinegar wrote:
Hello,
What effect do ZODB Writes have on Performance? We us
21 matches
Mail list logo
