[Grok-dev] Re: grok.Permission and grok.Role
janwijbrand at gmail.com
Thu Sep 20 08:10:54 EDT 2007
Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> I have implemented your suggestion on the
> jw-proper-components-for-role-permission branch.
> Permssion definitions now look like:
> class MyPermission(grok.Permission):
> id = 'my.permission'
> title = u'My Permission' # should this be optional?
> description = u'When you're allowed to foobar' # optional
> Role permission now look like:
> class MyRole(grok.Role):
> id = 'my.role'
> title = u'My Role' # should this be optional?
> description = u'When you're a Bazqux' # optional
> grok.permissions('my.permission', ...)
> There's no realy "grokified' error reporting yet when you forget about
> the id and/or title attribute on your permission and role classes.
> I'll merge this with the trunk after I get feedback on this change.
I did get feedback on this branch indeed. Martijn and I have been
discussing the implementation on the branch and we came to the following
* It might be better (after all) to have a grok.Role and grok.Permission
classes that directly subclass from zope.app.securitypolicy.role.Role
* Let's consistently use the grok.name/grok.title/grok.description
directives like Martijn proposed in the "proposal: grok.title() and
1) I can remove the jw-proper-components-for-role-permission branch
without merging anything from it.
2) I have updated the trunk to create and register "real" Permission and
Role instances, since the grok.Role and grok.Permission are now
subclasses from zope.app.securitypolicy.role.Role and
This update did not need any change in the tests. Thus, it is my
expectation that code that currently uses the grok.Permission and
grok.Role components will continue to work without a change.
More information about the Grok-dev