[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] Unauthorized confusion and Zope 2.4 compatibility

[Yuppie]

Hi!


Tres Seaver wrote:
> Yuppie wrote:
>> I propose to use zExceptions.Unauthorized to catch Unauthorized 
>> (catches both) and AccessControl.Unauthorized to raise Unauthorized 
>> (can be catched by both).
> 
> 
> +0:  it is ugly, and a bug magnet, but may be the best we can do.  Any 
> place where we catch that should use the fully-qualified name, and 
> include a comment so that others don't remove inadvertently.  E.g.::
> 
>    try:
>      # something which might raise one of the Unauthorized's
>    except zExceptions.Unauthorized:  # XXX:  catch all Unauth!
>      # handle it somehow
> 
>> CMFCoreExceptions.CMFUnauthorizedError is already a subclass of 
>> AccessControl.Unauthorized and could be used to raise Unauthorized.
> 
> 
> +1
> 
>> CMFCoreExceptions.Unauthorized could become an alias of 
>> zExceptions.Unauthorized.
> 
> 
> -1:  I'd rather ditch it altogether;  the alias is likely to cause 
> confusion.

Well. I see your point. Two Unauthorizeds cause enough confusion.


This is my point:

The main reason I started the CMFCoreExceptions stuff was to make errors 
catchable by TTW code.

CopySupport raises for example zExceptions.Unauthorized, so I want to be 
able to import this error in TTW code.

I don't think it's the Right Thing to change security declarations for 
Zope code by CMF code, e.g.:

<code>
     ModuleSecurityInfo('zExceptions').declarePublic('Unauthorized')
</code>

So I prefer to have aliases in CMFCoreExceptions. But maybe it is more 
clear to use something like 'zExceptions_Unauthorized'.

<code>
     from CMFCoreExceptions import zExceptions_Unauthorized

     try:
         # something which might raise one of the Unauthorized's
     except zExceptions_Unauthorized:  # XXX:  catch all Unauth!
         # handle it somehow
</code>

What do you think?


Cheers,
	Yuppie