Re: [ZCM] [ZC] 1713/ 8 Comment "ZCatalog getObject broken"
Tres Seaver <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.coders |
|---|---|
| Organization | Zope Corporation |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Collector: Zope Bugs, Features, and Patches ... wrote:
> Issue #1713 Update (Comment) "ZCatalog getObject broken"
> Status Accepted, Zope/bug critical
> To followup, visit:
> http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1713
>
> ==============================================================
> = Comment - Entry #8 by chrisw on Mar 29, 2005 5:46 pm
>
> What's the best way to get feedback on this?
>
> I don't want to have to roll back the commits, but is that the only way?
Chris,
You are the *only* person who feels that 'restrictedTraverse' would
be correct here. Don't even think about checking that in.
The implementation Florent checked in will do one of three things:
- Return the object, if it exists and the user has roles for it.
- Raise Unauthorized if the object exists, but the user has no
roles for it.
- Raise whatever 'unrestrictedTraverse' raises (usually either
KeyError or AttributeError) if the path requries traversing
through nonexistent objects.
This behavior is the consensus fidelium on the semantics of 'getObject'.
You can tinker with optimizing the implementation, but *don't* revert
it, nor change the semantics, without first persuading the community.
Even threatening to revert Florent's changes is not an acceptable way to
reopen the discussion.
In any case, use the list for discussion, not the collector.
Tres.
- --
===============================================================
Tres Seaver [email protected]
Zope Corporation "Zope Dealers" http://www.zope.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCSeFqGqWXf00rNCgRAhtBAJ4w7OLa30ogeJSbcGRocZ0voZcjRACffXpz
98HPI8SzP05H4Mr6e2Gsb6w=
=qLVQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----