[Zope3-dev] Form framework, adapters and pau

[Jim Fulton]

Dominik Huber wrote:
> (This mail seems to be lost some where so I take another try.)

Sorry if this was my fault.

> Hi Jim,
> 
> I cleaned up the locatableadapters-branch, but I did not implement an 
> additonal locate attribute to the adapter directive yet, because it's
> pretty tricky to separate trusted-ness from location-ness.

How so?

> I already raised the question what the precedence should be if the 
> <class...-and-<adapter...-pattern is used within the registration of 
> trusted adapters.

OK, I'll anser that.  If a permission is used in an adapter directive,
it takes precedence over declarations made in a class directive.

(In the future, I'd like to change the way security declarations work
so that, perhaps, they are set on a name-by-name basis.  So then,
declarations for names in other interfaces wouldb't be lost when
making a declaration for an adapter to a particular interface.)

>>> Question: What should the precedence be if I use the sample zwiki 
>>> registration (modified example above)?
>>>
>>> At the moment (trunk) the permission attribute of the <adapter... is 
>>> ignored and the permission-set of the <class... is invoked
>>> (experimental verification only).
>>
>>
>>
>> I couldn't tell you what the precedence should be because I didn't
>> anticipate that someone would do both.
> 
> 
> 
> The precedence is  <class... then <adapter... because the 
> _protectedFactory (used for adapter permissions) does only set the 
> permission if the adapter does not provide an __Security_checker__ 
> attribute (see also zope.security.checker.ProxyFactory).

I don't see this. The _protectedFactory sets the __Security_checker__
regardless of whether it is already set.

Also making declarations with the class directive does not set
__Security_checker__ attribute on the class.

zope.security.checker.ProxyFactory) checks for __Security_checker__
before looking for class-based declarations.

> Therefore we can't use the permission attribute of the <adapter... 
> directive to switch between locating or none-locating trusted adapter 
> factories because the permission of the <adapter..-directive. is not 
> asserted.

Sorry, I don't see this.

> Given the above precedence fact, I cannot imagine a way how to resolve 
> your (Jim's) requirement 
> 'trusted-public-adapters-should-not-be-location-proxied' and the 
> requirement within a local authentication any permission unless 
> zope.Public does require location-ness.
> 
> For that reason I sugest to stay with the current implementation of the 
> branch (30225) and cancel the locate-extension.

I think the current proposal is:

1. provide an explicit locate attribute.  This should be steaightforard.

2. if a non-public permission was specified, then behave as if a locate
    attribute was used.  This seems straightforward too.

I don't see what the problem is.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org