[Twisted-Python] Potential PB Security Problem (And Solution)
glyph at twistedmatrix.com
Sat Feb 16 06:47:35 EST 2002
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 22:29, Allen Short wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 20:39, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> > It was never my intention that remote object communication be
> > transparent, only convenient. (The party line is "translucent".)
> Be that as it may, this seems like a rather large loss of convenience in
> most cases. surely we can make this behaviour a runtime option on
> Broker? Broker.enableParanoia, Broker.disableParanoia methods perhaps?
> i leave the question of which is the default up for debate. :)
The semantics of remote objects will remain identical, the syntax will
change slightly. It will still be possible to emulate remote objects by
implementing the callRemote method to do local dispatch (which could be
I guess I'm just being thick here. What is the convenience being lost?
The additional 10 characters per remote invocation doesn't seem that
significant to me. (After all, it is currently still necessary to
emulate the behavior of remote objects, since they're always
"Cannot stand to be one of many -- I'm not what they are."
glyph lefkowitz; ninjaneer, freelance demiurge
glyph @ [ninjaneering|twistedmatrix].com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/attachments/20020216/47306d8b/attachment.pgp
More information about the Twisted-Python