[Zope-Coders] RFC: Death to string exceptions

[Tres Seaver]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 07:47, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
> > Tres wrote:
> >
> > > As with content_status_modify, should be catching
> > > zExceptions.Unauthorized.
> >
> > I have always used AccessControl.Unauthorized. Am I screwed now?
> 
> Argh dammit, what's this with these different Unauthorized classes ? I
> hope nobody ever raises zExceptions.Unauthorized because not much code
> will be able to catch it seeing that everyone uses
> AccessControl.Unauthorized... (which subclasses
> zExceptions.Unauthorized).

Hmm, I didn't realize that those were different classes;  I thought they
were aliases.  Given that AccessControl.ZopeSecurityPolicy raises the
subclass, while the ZPublisher.{Base,HTTP}Response raises the base
class, application code is definitely better off catching the base
class.

Is the distinction part of the design?   Is the following supposed *not*
to be catchable::

   REQUEST['RESPONSE'].unauthorized()

while the "normal" unauthorized can be caught?

Tres.
-- 
===============================================================
Tres Seaver                                tseaver at zope.com
Zope Corporation      "Zope Dealers"       http://www.zope.com