[Zope-dev] Re: names starting with '@' are not reserved

[yuppie]

Hi!


Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>>> and should be fixed in Zope 2.8, 2.9 and trunk.
>>> We'd be changing Zope 2's behaviour (not fixing a Five bug), I would
>>> therefore vote for making this change on the Zope 2 trunk only.
>> I'd be apt to not further restrict the set of identifiers an OFS content
>> object can begin with as long as we can get away with it.  If a user
>> happens to enter one that starts with a "view character", I suspect a
>> developer could just choose to not allow this in at the application level
>> if he cared (e.g. if he were using Five).  It might be reasonable to add
>> this to CMF instead of Zope, but  IMO, it's a bad idea to put theis
>> particular restriction in either place, as it will almost certainly break
>> somebody.
> 
> Yup. That's why we should do this change on the trunk IF at all.

I doubt this will break a significant amount of code. The restriction 
was removed 5 months ago and AFAICS it was removed to allow email 
addresses as IDs. That use case will not be broken if we disallow again 
IDs starting with '@'.

> Note that even in Zope 3 the suggested behaviour is only the default and can be
> changed. Custom name chooser adapters may decide whether names are good or not
> based on whatever rule. Therefore, if we introduce this restriction, it should
> be pluggable like in Zope 3.

If we ignore for a moment the fact that for the last 5 months the hole 
was open reserving '@' for views doesn't introduce any new restriction 
in Zope 2. '@' was always disallowed.

Removing that restriction for the first character was a mistake. I just 
want to revert that part of the change until we have a pluggable solution.

> Here's what we could do: We factor the name validation part in ObjectManager
> (which is _checkId) out to a namechooser adapter. Five already has one in
> Five.browser.adding.

This is obviously the Right Thing to do in the long term. But doesn't 
help us resolving the bug in Zope 2.8 and 2.9.

> Then, we can also provide an optional namechooser adapter
> that enforces the additional restrictions. People could decide to use this for
> their folder implementation, e.g. the CMF might want to do it for their
> folders.

We already have @@manage_interfaces and Zope 2 containers will have more 
Zope 3 style views in the future. So I think the default in OFS should 
be the same as the default in Zope 3.


Cheers,

	Yuppie