Death of local/persistent permissions (zope.app.security refactoring)
2009/3/11 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com>:
- Move LocalPermission into new zope.localpermission package. I personally didn't ever need local permissions. You're talking about locally defined permissions, correct, not about giving someone a permission locally?
I'm talking about local persistent permissions that can be added to ZODB and registered per site. It's zope.securitypolicy that gives local permissions, so, LocalPermission has nothing to do with local grants.
Right, that's what I thought. Agreed they should go off into a package on its own, probably to eventually die. :) (I have bad memories of struggling with this stuff in a sprint in 2003).
Thinking now. If we want local persistent permissions to be considered dead and we want to discourage their usage, may be the package should be called "zope.app.localpermission" then? If so, we could also move its ZMI views there and forget about that package. :) It's just because "zope.localpermission" name sounds like "some nice part of zope framework", but in reality, the functionality provided by the package is deprecated for use withing _the framework_. But, do we really want it deprecated and dead? May be there's some nice use cases for it? Anyone? -- WBR, Dan Korostelev
2009/3/13 Dan Korostelev <nadako@gmail.com>:
2009/3/11 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com>:
- Move LocalPermission into new zope.localpermission package. I personally didn't ever need local permissions. You're talking about locally defined permissions, correct, not about giving someone a permission locally?
I'm talking about local persistent permissions that can be added to ZODB and registered per site. It's zope.securitypolicy that gives local permissions, so, LocalPermission has nothing to do with local grants.
Right, that's what I thought. Agreed they should go off into a package on its own, probably to eventually die. :) (I have bad memories of struggling with this stuff in a sprint in 2003).
Thinking now. If we want local persistent permissions to be considered dead and we want to discourage their usage, may be the package should be called "zope.app.localpermission" then? If so, we could also move its ZMI views there and forget about that package. :) It's just because "zope.localpermission" name sounds like "some nice part of zope framework", but in reality, the functionality provided by the package is deprecated for use withing _the framework_.
But, do we really want it deprecated and dead? May be there's some nice use cases for it? Anyone?
Martijn, Stephan, anyone? This question is the only thing that stops me from releasing refactored packages. Personally, I quite like the idea of naming it "zope.app.localpermission", merging it with its views (possibly as an optional dependency) and forgetting about it. But it's just because I didn't ever need and probably won't ever need local permissions, so it's one of some "old and deprecated patterns" to me. So, if noone will object/reply soon, I'll rename the package and finally release the refactorings. -- WBR, Dan Korostelev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/13 Dan Korostelev <nadako@gmail.com>:
2009/3/11 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com>:
- Move LocalPermission into new zope.localpermission package. I personally didn't ever need local permissions. You're talking about locally defined permissions, correct, not about giving someone a permission locally? I'm talking about local persistent permissions that can be added to ZODB and registered per site. It's zope.securitypolicy that gives local permissions, so, LocalPermission has nothing to do with local grants. Right, that's what I thought. Agreed they should go off into a package on its own, probably to eventually die. :) (I have bad memories of struggling with this stuff in a sprint in 2003). Thinking now. If we want local persistent permissions to be considered dead and we want to discourage their usage, may be the package should be called "zope.app.localpermission" then? If so, we could also move its ZMI views there and forget about that package. :) It's just because "zope.localpermission" name sounds like "some nice part of zope framework", but in reality, the functionality provided by the package is deprecated for use withing _the framework_.
But, do we really want it deprecated and dead? May be there's some nice use cases for it? Anyone?
Martijn, Stephan, anyone? This question is the only thing that stops me from releasing refactored packages.
Personally, I quite like the idea of naming it "zope.app.localpermission", merging it with its views (possibly as an optional dependency) and forgetting about it. But it's just because I didn't ever need and probably won't ever need local permissions, so it's one of some "old and deprecated patterns" to me.
So, if noone will object/reply soon, I'll rename the package and finally release the refactorings.
Silence is assent. ;) Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJut/S+gerLs4ltQ4RApSOAKCYmmDeS5NUzLrofSYiKqIo9aVt5QCgup58 IOl27I6zo+dIaRecPbKX8qQ= =kE0K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Friday 13 March 2009, Dan Korostelev wrote:
Thinking now. If we want local persistent permissions to be considered dead and we want to discourage their usage, may be the package should be called "zope.app.localpermission" then? If so, we could also move its ZMI views there and forget about that package. :) It's just because "zope.localpermission" name sounds like "some nice part of zope framework", but in reality, the functionality provided by the package is deprecated for use withing _the framework_.
But, do we really want it deprecated and dead? May be there's some nice use cases for it? Anyone?
Martijn, Stephan, anyone? This question is the only thing that stops me from releasing refactored packages.
+1 on your suggestion. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
Hey, Dan Korostelev wrote: [snip]
Thinking now. If we want local persistent permissions to be considered dead and we want to discourage their usage, may be the package should be called "zope.app.localpermission" then? If so, we could also move its ZMI views there and forget about that package. :) It's just because "zope.localpermission" name sounds like "some nice part of zope framework", but in reality, the functionality provided by the package is deprecated for use withing _the framework_.
You're right, we shouldn't be calling it zope.localpermission. Perhaps we shouldn't be calling it zope.app.localpermission either though, as this implies this package can be mined for useful bits. But I don't want a naming discussion, so I think we should go for your suggestion now (zope.app.localpermission which also has the ZMI).
But, do we really want it deprecated and dead? May be there's some nice use cases for it? Anyone?
At best right now it can serve as example code on how to accomplish this. I can imagine some kind of mythical future ZMI the Next Generation project that would need this. But we cannot afford to care about such mythical future projects as a community, so we should consider it dead. We'll see the fact that nobody but me answered your question as good evidence for this. Regards, Martijn
participants (4)
-
Dan Korostelev -
Martijn Faassen -
Stephan Richter -
Tres Seaver