Hi Lukas, what I forgott: thanks for the answers, Lukas ! Regards Hans _______________________________________________ SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ... https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki
Hi Lukas, Am 30.04.2006 um 21:55 schrieb Lukas Renggli: >> For security and web, I'm a little bit paranoid, especially at >> such powerful systems like Pier(Continue reading)I've discussed security in >> Seaside/Pier with a friend, and from this I'm not sure today what I >> expect from such systems like seaside/pier. He says, security >> belongs only to buisness logic. I'm not so shure, also what to call >> buisness logic in Pier...... I will post a related question to the >> list later. > > If your friend means "model" when talking about "business logic", he > is right: the security decoration is a pure model object, that works > exactly the same for all views, not just seaside one. Thanks to the > nature of visitors one can easily control how security concerns are > handled when performing operations. Yes, I know that this is a common way to think. What bothers me is this (from a naive point of view): - security should not something which is only be added (thats the nature of decoration), because what was added can also be removed or forget to add. It seems more natural to me that security is deep in the mechanism of objects (or better message send), like the vats in E or Islands in Croquet. - if one say model or buisness logic, one could easily think at the multi tier architectures. Here it is a common way to say, security must handled be the database objects (for example), not by the
> Yes, I know that this is a common way to think. What bothers me is > this (from a naive point of view): > > - security should not something which is only be added (thats the > nature of decoration), because what was added can also be removed or > forget to add. Well, as soon as the unix security package is loaded, the security decoration adds itself automatically to all newly created structures. There is no easy way, except by manually editing the object-graph from the inspector, to add or remove security decorations. > It seems more natural to me that security is deep in > the mechanism of objects (or better message send), like the vats in E > or Islands in Croquet. In my opinion this is something different. I want to keep as much as possible pluggable in Pier, so that users with different needs can use different security systems. There are already two security frameworks that both work nicely, that both have advantages and disadvantages, and that every user can decide to use or not to use. > - if one say model or buisness logic, one could easily think at the > multi tier architectures. Here it is a common way to say, security > must handled be the database objects (for example), not by the > objects which are only a viewer. My problem is 1) that these viewers > are mediators of security and 2) that in complex systems this > viewers can be itself complex object with model-view architecture. In Pier the security is not handled by the view, but by the model.(Continue reading)
Hi, > >> - if one say model or buisness logic, one could easily think at the >> multi tier architectures. Here it is a common way to say, security >> must handled be the database objects (for example), not by the >> objects which are only a viewer. My problem is 1) that these viewers >> are mediators of security and 2) that in complex systems this >> viewers can be itself complex object with model-view architecture. > > In Pier the security is not handled by the view, but by the model. > That is also the reason why it works in the Seaside view and in the > OmniBrowser view without additional code. Yes, this is clear (because decorators are part of model) if looking at "Seaside only" solutions. My statement above was made by thinking Seaside/Pier itself as a view in a greater solution. But ok, where to draw the borders between model and view may be somewhat academic(Continue reading)>> > > Hope this clarifies some things, Oh, I understand the implementation in Pier, and also the intention. I only want to play with a different point of view
Lucas, is there a particular reason that Pier doesn't allow WATask subclasses to be added as components? _______________________________________________ SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ... https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki
> Lucas, is there a particular reason that Pier doesn't allow WATask > subclasses to be added as components? Actually subclasses of WATask should work. In some older versions of Pier there was a bug that a WATask rendered empty on the first request, however I think this problem is solved in current versions of Pier. Can you give some more details about your task? Cheers, Lukas -- -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ... https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki
> Actually subclasses of WATask should work. In some older > versions of Pier there was a bug that a WATask rendered empty > on the first request, however I think this problem is solved > in current versions of Pier. > > Can you give some more details about your task? > > Cheers, > Lukas My bad, I'd forgotten to add canBeRoot on the class side, wasn't showing up in the component list. Works fine. _______________________________________________ SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ... https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki
> > I tried to change as a first step the environment (adding my > own layers and removing the ugly tables) using the following > statement: > <div id="divHeader"><div id="divCommands">+commands+</div></div><div > id="divLeft"><div class="boxes">+tree+</div></div><div > id="divContents">+contents+</div> > > But it seems, that this code gets escaped. Inspecting the > kernel and its root structure I see my HTML code as part of a > paragraph which seems to escape all the HTML characters... > > Help is welcome!
>> I tried to change as a first step the environment (adding my >> own layers and removing the ugly tables) using the following >> statement: >> <div id="divHeader"><div id="divCommands">+commands+</div></div><div >> id="divLeft"><div class="boxes">+tree+</div></div><div >> id="divContents">+contents+</div> >> >> But it seems, that this code gets escaped. Inspecting the >> kernel and its root structure I see my HTML code as part of a >> paragraph which seems to escape all the HTML characters... >> >> Help is welcome!(Continue reading)
Hi Is it possible to use existing descriptions to express a relation with object existing or not ? We could imagine choosing a responsible from an existing list of person defined by a class Person. If the person doens't exist, we can instanciate a new one. I will try to create an appropriate description but I don't really know where to subclass as it is a bit of a mix between a SingleOptionDescription with instances of a class as option and a ToOneRelation description with class Person. What do you think ? I ve tried with a MASingleOption description defining the reference as Person description and options as my repository of users but that hangs (due to the reference wich is a Caontainer Description I guess)... I also tried with MADynamicDescription without result... that makes me ask another question... Are all MADynamicObject used with classes or subclasses as it is in my image ? thanks Cédrick _______________________________________________ SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ... https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki(Continue reading)
RSS Feed11 | |
|---|---|
15 | |
8 | |
26 | |
3 | |
3 | |
36 | |
33 | |
14 | |
1 | |
2 | |
20 | |
7 | |
49 | |
111 | |
28 | |
14 | |
13 | |
51 | |
56 | |
42 | |
27 | |
35 | |
31 | |
26 | |
35 | |
97 | |
58 | |
124 | |
120 | |
54 | |
55 | |
56 | |
58 | |
57 | |
103 | |
52 | |
167 | |
158 | |
10 | |
23 | |
30 | |
83 | |
32 | |
228 | |
94 | |
185 | |
213 | |
201 | |
89 | |
38 | |
33 | |
97 | |
39 | |
59 | |
153 | |
50 | |
58 | |
24 | |
69 | |
28 | |
32 | |
69 | |
44 | |
121 | |
95 | |
108 | |
124 | |
63 | |
41 | |
88 | |
116 | |
5 | |
1 | |
2 | |
1 | |
72 | |
53 | |
25 | |
69 | |
52 | |
88 | |
46 | |
75 | |
57 | |
27 | |
79 | |
33 | |
63 | |
27 | |
56 | |
30 | |
29 |
