[Zope-CMF] Security declarations on adapters

[Charlie Clark]

Am 07.09.2012, 09:01 Uhr, schrieb yuppie <y.2012 at wcm-solutions.de>:

> I have additional data, but still have to verify it and merge it into  
> the CMF trunk todos. Just updated the todo for 'content' and added one  
> for 'skins'.

>  [-] means that we don't want/need to convert this
> [?] means that we still have to decide if and how this should be  
> converted
> [/] means unfinished

Thanks for the clarification.

>  Some of the issues mentioned in 'content' might now belong into  
> 'discussion'. Please update the todos according to your changes.

Will do.

>  And I have a quick and dirty view implementation for local  
> role/sharing. Reimplementing it based on formlib would be a lot of work,  
> so maybe I should just check in my code.

As I'm not even sure what it does I'd definitely suggest you check it in.  
I'd also be very interested in your "skinless" workaround. As luck would  
have it I was discussing CMF with someone and I think we should have it in  
the docs somewhere.

I would also like to add a quick install guide for anyone wanting to use  
CMFDefault as a springboard.

>  I thought we'd agreed not to make them the default for this release but
> remove the "experimental" label from the profile. Personally, I would
> like to see them as the default, not least because they nearly all have
> coverage. But, we shouldn't be packing too much into a single release.
> Maybe because you work with trunk you notice less?

>  I didn't propose to pack all this in CMF 2.3. My list also contains the  
> next steps after the release.

Where is the list?

>   Off the top of my head:
> correcting the docs.
>  There are also duplicate DCWorkflow docs. Someone has to figure out
> if the old .stx docs are redundant and obsolete.

>  There are equivalents for all .stx as .rst. I thought I had moved the
> files over but apparently not. I don't know what to do about the
> examples. But the .stx files can go.

>  You moved the docs to the new place, so why didn't/don't you remove the  
> obsolete files yourself?

It was sort of rhetorical. I thought I'd done svn move, to preserve the  
history. But considering the refactoring I guess I didn't. I'll pull the  
.stx

Charlie
-- 
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Kronenstr. 27a
Düsseldorf
D- 40217
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226