Hey, Dan Korostelev wrote:
As a part of zope.app.security refactoring process, I extracted local (persistent) permissions to new "zope.localpermission". And I faced one problem and I'm not sure about its resolution.
Originally, I wanted to only move the "zope.Public" permission declaration into zope.security, because that permission name is special and always available. As for other permissions (zope.View/zope.Security/zope.ManageContent, etc.), I wanted to just leave them in zope.app.security as is.
But security declarations for the "LocalPermission" class in zope.localpermission needs the "zope.Security" permission. Also, some of those permissions are used much in other zope.* packages for zcml security declarations.
So, I wonder what should we do with this.
If it doesn't introduce new dependencies, I think a few more definitions of permissions in zope.security won't hurt (only those commonly used). I'd like that better than introducing a new package. Do you think this will be tolerable to you? We should indeed only move those widely used. The problem we have is that some content objects (i.e. not only the ZMI) declare that some of their methods need permissions. In order to support those we do need to have the definitions in a central place, and I think zope.security would be as good as any if we can do it without introducing more dependencies. Just put them in a separate submodule and we should be okay.
Oh, and on the topic, one more time: can we have a steering group decision on the package requirements for zcml statements? Are we doing extras for them or simply skipping them?
Sorry, I wasn't clear that there was an open question and I'm afraid I don't understand this one. :) Could you point me to the appropriate thread that was left in the middle, or could you start a new thread with a description of the open question? Regards, Martijn