-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/01/2004, at 9:23 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2004-1-15 10:03 -0500:
...
Right. The name attribute was intended for attribute-based access.
IMO, it makes no sense to consider key values when doing security
checks
As the originator of management_page_charset, I should have jumped into this
thread earlier. My appologies for my late arrival.
On Thursday 15 January 2004 17:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> it assumes the only place
> management_page_charset can be coming from is a property, which is
> not true.
On Friday 16 January 2004 17:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:56:36 +0100
> From: robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Re: 2.7 assertion with CVS of that morning two
> days ago
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2004-1-15 17:23 -0500:
...
None should never be passed for attribute accesses. If it is,
then there is a bug. The case of dictionary mapping names to
whatever is for attribute access. We are talking about item/key
access. I haven't seen a use case for nee
Stuart Bishop wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/01/2004, at 9:23 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2004-1-15 10:03 -0500:
...
Right. The name attribute was intended for attribute-based access.
IMO, it makes no sense to consider key values whe
I downloaded 2.6.3 to do some testing and found that with a totally
generic CMF-1.3.3 there is an issue with opening properties of a portal
type. Here is the stack trace:
Traceback (innermost last):
Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 98, in publish
Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 88, in mapply
Erik A.Dahl wrote:
I downloaded 2.6.3 to do some testing and found that with a totally
generic CMF-1.3.3 there is an issue with opening properties of a portal
type. Here is the stack trace:
Traceback (innermost last):
Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 98, in publish
Module ZPublisher.mapply,
It is often favorable to have a set of site wide defines
that can occasionally be redefined for special purposes.
The attached patch adds a "%redefine" directive to ZConfig's
"cfgparser". "%redefine" behaves exactly like "define" but
does not check whether the name is already defined.
--
Dieter
We often have the need to use the same configuration value
both in a ZConfig configuration as well as in other non-ZConfig
based "components".
Prominent examples are the "INSTANCE_HOME" in the Zope/ZEO startup
scripts and the "INSTANCE" definition in the corresponding
configuration files.
Moreove
Hi,
I need a solution to quickly and easily deploy zope applications on the win32
platform. What I'd like to realize is a setup program that install and
configure Zope bundled with all the needed products, making questions to the
user for correctly setup the application. Unfortunately I have no
> I need a solution to quickly and easily deploy zope applications
> on the win32
> platform. What I'd like to realize is a setup program that install and
> configure Zope bundled with all the needed products, making
> questions to the
> user for correctly setup the application. Unfortunately I hav
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 13:15, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> For 2.7.0 and above, we've moved to using InnoSetup. We haven't
> worked out the best way to move that work to the public cvs yet.
> If you're planning to bundle 2.7, let me know and I can at least
> get you a snapshot of the install materials.
It'
Evan Simpson wrote:
Update of /cvs-repository/Releases/Zope/lib/python/ZEO
In directory cvs.zope.org:/tmp/cvs-serv18593/lib/python/ZEO
Modified Files:
Tag: Zope-2_6-branch
simul.py
Log Message:
Non-Python 2.1-compatible division operator "//" crept into 2.6 branch.
This is a result of some
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 13:58, Tres Seaver wrote:
> This is a result of some funny repository fiddling, which somehow got
> both 'ZEO' and 'BDBStorage' onto the 'Zope-2_6-branch'. I would like to
> remove the branch tag altogether, as neither module is part of the 2.6
> release.
The branch tag i
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 04:53:02PM -0500, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> One downside of that merge, which we didn't realized until after it was
> done, is that you now get a ZEO directory in a Zope checkout on the 2.6
> branch.
downside??? I thought that was a good thing!
> I think there was email abou
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 04:53:02PM -0500, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
One downside of that merge, which we didn't realized until after it was
done, is that you now get a ZEO directory in a Zope checkout on the 2.6
branch.
downside??? I thought that was a good thing!
I think there
Hi
>Hi guys -
>
>I was trying to be responsive to getting the issue resolved, since
>I'd like to make a (hopefully final) beta of 2.7 of Friday. I'll be
>happy to check in (or have you check in) whatever fixes are needed
>to give you the flexibility you need so long as it is b/w compatible,
>
Jim Fulton wrote:
Stuart Bishop wrote:
...
It was never intended that the ability to control unprotected sub-objects
by name would apply to items. It was sloppy coding on my part that item
indexes
(yes, indexes, like, say, 1) and keys were passed as names. I can
certainly
understand why peopl
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2004-1-15 17:23 -0500:
BTW, telling me that an algorithm has changed doesn't constitute
a use case. :) I know that algorithm has changed. I assert that
we don't need the feature that the change broke. I am open
to evidence to the contrary.
Do you have a
19 matches
Mail list logo
