Michel Pelletier wrote:
/change/change/all/update/search/change
(different menu items clicked one after the other). Zope caches all this paths (is that correct?), so after a while Zope was very slow
Hmm.. this was a performance problem? I would guess it wouldn't be that much of a problem unless your paths got REALLY big.
I just looked at a few lines in the logfile, but this recursive links where accumulated during a whole day, so 20-30 steps until maybe 100 are the region we talk about here. Since I corrected the bug, the server runs normally (the few other unusual requests do not disturb it anymore..)
At least things like
/Documentation/Documentation/Documentation/Documentation
You can't forbid people, no, but you can prevent such paths from being constructed from *your* code. I don't think there is any kind of Denial
that's what I tried, :-) but nevertheless I still detected that kind of weird requests
of Server attack possible from this, a mild annoyance at best.
Anobody here to try that with a small script? Death by recursion :-)
should not be allowed or did I miss some Zope Zen?
I think it should be allowed, and that the Zen be elaborated on a bit. You shouldn't design your site so that these things occur unless you really want it.
As far as I can see I did exactly that (exept for some internal stuff, where I did a mistake which generated my problems..) Ty Sarna wrote:
In the sites I'm managing, the "modes" are some cases different modes (like "show me this as text", "show me this as html", "provide the ability to edit the data", which can possibly be combined, like html view with editing). In other cases the modes are actually different access levels. app may reference a DTML method "menu" in several places. app can contain a basic definition of menu with the basic choices and Anonymous view permission. You might have a "mode" folder called "author" which contains a method of the same name but with higher security restructions and that provide more choices. by accessing app/author/... instead of app/..., the user is forced to authenticate and will be given more menu choices.
yes, that's really cool and I had this kind o things in my mind too (frame-version, noframe-version as a simple example. You detailed much more exciting stuff which would certainly be interesting to look at ;-) I just got a strange feeling when the server was knocked down last week with this "side-effect", but you both persuaded me: it's a feature :-) cu and thanks for the insight -- Tom http://www.linux-magazin.de/