Re: security.public/private/protected decorators

Sorry, forgot to Cc a couple of people involved in discussion and
solution included in this mail.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:33:56 -0800, Florian Friesdorf <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Matthew, Alan,
> 
> as discussed during ploneconf2011 I wrote the decorators:
> security.public
> security.private
> security.protected
> as successors to their declareX pendants.
> 
> All new code is fully covered (except a raise).
> 
> @all: please review AccessControl r123394 - r123399
> 
> security.protected('permission') returns a decorator and it should be
> ensured that all those decorators are actually called, i.e. that the @
> isn't missing.
> 
> flo

-- 
Florian Friesdorf <[email protected]>
  GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D  BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083
Jabber/XMPP: [email protected]
IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC

_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [email protected]
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=CpVt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----