[Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

[Brian Lloyd]

>   Both me and Myroslav Opyr <myroslav@zope.net.ua> are quite
>  commited to do the proposed "Object Links/References". Although
>  from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that
>  it was one of the "controversial enough" to be a Vetted item :-)
> 
>   Anyways I'm commited to do it. I do agree with your argument about
>  link semantics but, at least for me, a link/reference is a link, and the
>  semantics are perfectly defined i.e its not a RedirectObject.
> 
>   As in Unix, a hard link has different semantics from a soft link. I'm
>  thinking of the "hard link" semantics. 

I guess that what I was getting at is that the semantics 
for this need to be spelled out in detail so that we can 
make sure that they make sense before something like this 
goes in. 

Comparing it to Unix hard links is fine, but Unix doesn't 
use Acquisition to handle security, so the comparison is 
not apples-to-apples :) We need to spell out the exact semantics 
(*especially* wrt security, but also in terms of its effect on 
ZODB identity semantics, effects on undo, etc.)

Security in particular is very concerned with *containment* 
path (rather than just acquisition path) in order to prevent 
"stealing" access through acquisition wrappers. Having objects 
with more than one "place" may introduce much the same problem, 
so we'll need to write up in detail the effects on the security 
machinery or its application to domain objects (or if the security
machinery does not need to change, we need to spell out why).

Brian Lloyd        brian@zope.com
V.P. Engineering   540.361.1716       
Zope Corporation   http://www.zope.com