Currently I am considering about delivering a Webware application to a customer without the source code ot the servlets, i.e. only handing out the *.pyo files. This may prevent a little bit from fiddling around with the sources, though I know it is not a real protection since it is possible to recompile. Anyway, the problem is: Webware will not work if you take away the *.py files. It will ignore the *.pyc and *.pyo files even if you remove them from FilesToHide. The reason is that '.py' is hardcoded as the (only) extension for the PythonServletFactory.
So, my question is: Is there a good reason why the class PythonServletFactory has only
def extensions(self): return ['.py']
and not
def extensions(self): return ['.py', '.pyc', '.pyo']
I suggest adding the two extensions.
I think the reason (if there was one) for not including .pyc and .pyo files is that it could be seen as a potential security hole, in that removing the .py file would not be sufficient to delete the servlet if the .pyc file had been created. Though part of it was probably also the lack of cascading extensions -- i.e., you had to have one matching extension, instead of multiple files with servable extensions (as you'll typically have if you serve .pyc files). You can now have this by setting the appropriate settings, but this aspect persists.
I don't really see the importance of this change -- you can certainly make the change for your application, and it's neither a large change, nor is distribution much of a problem because you're obviously going to be distributing the entire package including Webware.
Ian
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Webware-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
