Chris McDonough wrote:
>
> Is security really a part of an object's interface? I thought this was more
> of an implementation thing.
When refactoring the PTK it became apparent that supplying security
assertions on the interface rather than the implementation can be very
useful. In fact, an interesting pattern emerged: "view" objects needed
no security assertions as long as the "model" objects had all the
necessary assertions.
I'm not sure if there is any basis for this idea in current OO
methodology, but I really think the concept has merit. It certainly
clarifies Zope security IMHO.
Shane
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Pelletier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Geeks Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:05 PM
> Subject: [Geeks] Interface Meta Data proposal
>
> >
> > I've added a sub-proposal to the Interface proposal for describing
> > additional meta-data with Interface objects:
> >
> > http://www.zope.org/Wikis/Interfaces/ExtesableMetaData
> >
> > Please comment about this interesting possibility.
> >
> > -Michel
> >
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
