[Zope3-dev] Re: Duplicated zope.decorator in zope.app.container

[Christian Theune]

Hi,

Jim Fulton wrote:
> Yes, now that you mention it.  Proxies should be as transparent as
> possible.  As such, they shouldn't add additional attributes if they can
> avoid it.  I think it's best to leave things as they are, with a comment
> pointing out that the difference is in the version of getProciedObject
> used.

I wonder if that is only due to the use of proxies for security proxies.
In this case I understand that the proxy needs to be as transparent as
possible to avoid attack vectors on the proxy itself.

For other proxies I could imagine that this isn't true. I think
traversal proxies are one example. They would be fine if they were
translucent not transparent, or not?

Christian

-- 
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany
www.gocept.com - ct at gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20060925/6f278353/signature.bin