Hello people, I'm currently working with some content editors that would like to keep their current WYSIWYG tools and use them in combination with Zope/Plone, and using the DAV interface seemed like the best approach, and it does indeed mostly work. One of the larger problems we face using this approach is that quite a few products expose objects via DAV that are not roundtrip-safe; getting-then-putting will result in unwanted behaviour in some cases, and for other objects I don't see much value in allowing them to be accessed over DAV (like the contents of acl_users). I wrote the attached monkey patch to address this (be kind, I'm pretty new to Python), and Sidnei da Silva (author of DavPack) suggested I post the patch on these lists to see if there was an interest into this approach. What it does is disable DAV access for non-collection resources in general and then selectively turns it on for some (non-exhaustive) list. Folderish objects are enabled by default but can be turned off. Objects/classes can also disable or enable themselves by explicitly setting __dav_resource__ to 0 or 1. I'm not suggesting this particular list is the correct one. Thoughts? With kind regard, Emiliano Heyns
Please post your patches to the Zope Collector. This list is not the right place to submit patches since they might get lost. -aj --On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2004 20:43 Uhr +0100 Emiliano Heyns <emiliano.heyns@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello people,
I'm currently working with some content editors that would like to keep their current WYSIWYG tools and use them in combination with Zope/Plone, and using the DAV interface seemed like the best approach, and it does indeed mostly work. One of the larger problems we face using this approach is that quite a few products expose objects via DAV that are not roundtrip-safe; getting-then-putting will result in unwanted behaviour in some cases, and for other objects I don't see much value in allowing them to be accessed over DAV (like the contents of acl_users).
I wrote the attached monkey patch to address this (be kind, I'm pretty new to Python), and Sidnei da Silva (author of DavPack) suggested I post the patch on these lists to see if there was an interest into this approach.
What it does is disable DAV access for non-collection resources in general and then selectively turns it on for some (non-exhaustive) list. Folderish objects are enabled by default but can be turned off. Objects/classes can also disable or enable themselves by explicitly setting __dav_resource__ to 0 or 1. I'm not suggesting this particular list is the correct one.
Thoughts?
With kind regard, Emiliano Heyns
Andreas Jung wrote:
Please post your patches to the Zope Collector. This list is not the right place to submit patches since they might get lost.
I think it is OK to post the patch here (but on one list), with a comment like, "Does this seem like something which would be accepatable in the core? Is it implemented correctly?" After that discussion, then yes, the collector is the right place to post the (possibly amended) patch. Tres. -- =============================================================== Tres Seaver tseaver@zope.com Zope Corporation "Zope Dealers" http://www.zope.com
Em Qua, 2004-12-15 às 20:53 +0100, Andreas Jung escreveu:
Please post your patches to the Zope Collector. This list is not the right place to submit patches since they might get lost.
Though this (zope-dev) is the right place to discuss them (I suggest we stop crossposting to zope-coders to avoid duplication). I haven't looked at the patches, but I like the idea of limiting the visibility of DAV items to those that make sense. Cheers, Leo -- Leonardo Rochael Almeida <leo@hiper.com.br>
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:32:08 -0200, Leonardo Rochael Almeida <leo@hiper.com.br> wrote:
Em Qua, 2004-12-15 às 20:53 +0100, Andreas Jung escreveu:
Please post your patches to the Zope Collector. This list is not the right place to submit patches since they might get lost.
Though this (zope-dev) is the right place to discuss them (I suggest we stop crossposting to zope-coders to avoid duplication).
I haven't looked at the patches, but I like the idea of limiting the visibility of DAV items to those that make sense.
Sorry for posting the patch to the list. I'll add it to a Zope Collector -- the CMF collector seems most appropriate, yeah? Emiliano
Emiliano Heyns <emiliano.heyns@gmail.com> wrote:
Though this (zope-dev) is the right place to discuss them (I suggest we stop crossposting to zope-coders to avoid duplication).
I haven't looked at the patches, but I like the idea of limiting the visibility of DAV items to those that make sense.
Sorry for posting the patch to the list. I'll add it to a Zope Collector -- the CMF collector seems most appropriate, yeah?
Yes the CMF collector is fine. Thanks. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg@nuxeo.com
Emiliano Heyns <emiliano.heyns@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:38:26 +0100, Florent Guillaume <fg@nuxeo.com> wrote:
Yes the CMF collector is fine.
Must issues be approved before showing up? I posted the issue but can't find it back.
No it should be visible, and in the "Pending" state. And it's not there and I didn't get any notification email of a new entry. Please repost it (http://collector.zope.org/CMF). Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg@nuxeo.com
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:14:36 +0100, Florent Guillaume <fg@nuxeo.com> wrote:
No it should be visible, and in the "Pending" state. And it's not there and I didn't get any notification email of a new entry. Please repost it (http://collector.zope.org/CMF).
I appearantly need an account on the zope site to actually store the issue (after submitting it says 'you need an account...'. When I try to create an account it just goes back to the registration page with no indication on what went wrong or right, no account created,
participants (5)
-
Andreas Jung -
Emiliano Heyns -
Florent Guillaume -
Leonardo Rochael Almeida -
Tres Seaver