[Zope-CMF] CMF-Wiki

[Ken Manheimer]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jeff Sasmor wrote:

> Just re-upped my CMF CVS today and
> noticed that wiki was included.  Cool!
> 
> Saw this note, though:
> [...]
> I recall seeing something on this list about not trying to use 2.4 with
> CMF yet, so, for those who want to play and didn't figure this out on their
> own, here is what I did.

Thanks for sharing the info!

> [...]
> This is probably not a candidate to be included in the code permanently,
> since it doesn't check for that role's existence (?what happens if you

Why not do an 

  if 'Authenticated' not in roles:

before doing the addition?  (I haven't looked at the code, so don't know
that the roles object supports 'in', but this is the idea...)

> since it doesn't check for that role's existence (?what happens if you
> didn't add 'Authenticated' first?). It probably belongs

Wiki "regulations" provide the wiki page owner with categorical control
over who can do various wiki page operations - create, edit, move,
something else - according to "role categories": 'nobody', 'owners',
'non-anonymous', and 'everyone'.  All of these categories _except_
"non-anonymous" can be implemented according to standard zope
permissions/roles.  To be able to implement regulations based entirely on
zope roles, chris mcdonough invented the 'Authenticated' pseudo-role,
intrinsic to every authenticated user.  It's globally implemented as part
2.4, but not in any versions before that.  "non-anonymous" is a very
commonly used role criterion, so not having 'Authenticated' screws up
regulations control.

> somewhat higher up in the food chain than I placed it.  But it suffices for
> just poking around with Wiki. Note that a CVS-update will wipe this out.

Again, thanks for making this clear to people.  Since the CMF is moving to
Zope 2.4 dependency, it doesn't make a lot of sense to work to hard on
solving this for the general case - really, it's a workaround to enable
people to use it outside its intended context...

Ken
klm@digicool.com