Hi Lukas,
Thanks again for your time and precisions!
At 12:23 20/02/2010, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Did you press 'refresh' to see the change?
No.
Just hitting the back
button only shows you the page from the browser cache.
Just double checked it, and you are perfectly right. The new value is
maintained. What I observed when using the back button was the value
cached by the browser.
Maybe there are other setups where that might make
sense?
Sure. For example, for practical reasons, I've preferred replacing
the *management* page with a specific *admin toolbar*, which is
actually only accessible to the *root* (and not users with *admin* rights).
That's why I
suggested to package the wrappers separately.
There is some progress in that direction, but some extra work is
necessary. The first package that I posted lacks usage examples. The
2nd package addresses this issue, but patches PRDistribution. Now,
I'm going to sub-class PRDistribution. However, before posting the
final package, would you please tell me your preference for one of
the followings:
1) The warper commands and the new distribution class integrated in
Pier-Setup as package.
2) The warper commands and the new distribution class integrated in a
new package.
I'd prefer the first one to avoid an additional package for a piece
of code that addresses basically the same needs than "Pier-Setup".
If anywhere -- on potentially thousands of pages (like
in the seaside
book)
That's an interesting use case indeed. Would it be possible to
communicate more precisely the number of Pier structures that
contains Seaside book (just curious)?
-- you (accidentally) give the permissions to edit
the kernel
name, anybody is able to change it. In the current default setup you
just have to make sure that the system page and its children are
protected.
Well noted; thanks for the precision. In my current experimental
distribution, I've addressed this issue as follows:
1) Added a "root" user (called *master*), and
2) Overridden PRCommand class >> #valideIn: for wrapper widgets to
return true only if the current user is master (and not superusers).
Regards,
Reza