[Python-Dev] doc for new restricted execution design for Python

[Nick Coghlan]

Greg Ewing wrote:
> Another thing I perhaps should point out is that
> I'm proposing the separation of open() and file()
> for *all* code, not just restricted code. So it's
> not a matter of "crippling" file() specially for
> restricted code.

What would the signature of the file constructor be in that case? Would it 
accept a single CObject instance, with open() bypassing the normal 
constructor, and handing the file pointer directly to the file object instance?

It seems like a reasonable approach for making 'dangerous' objects like file 
and socket much easier to secure - have a separate factory function to create 
*new* instances at the C level, so that you can hand the objects over without 
worrying about providing access to the constructor (because the constructor 
*accepts* the OS-level object as an argument, rather than creating it anew).

Alternatively, using a "no-Python-level-introspection" metaclass might be 
another way to achieve the same effect in a more universal fashion.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
             http://www.boredomandlaziness.org