On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Abel Deuring
<email address hidden> wrote:
> This design feature obviously leads to problems for security related bug
> attachments ;)
Yes. We can also reconsider these features. The file resurrection
feature can go IMO - it isn't useful except to surprise users. The
ability to continue to serve expired files if there are other active
links in the database is also of dubious value. Dropping the
LibraryFileContent.deleted and making LibraryFileAlias.content
nullable might be a better approach and would not have major impact on
the codebase. We would lose history of the hashes and filesize of an
expired or deleted file, but I don't think anyone would care. I guess
Bjorn is the person to discuss this with.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Abel Deuring
<email address hidden> wrote:
> This design feature obviously leads to problems for security related bug
> attachments ;)
Yes. We can also reconsider these features. The file resurrection ent.deleted and making LibraryFileAlia s.content
feature can go IMO - it isn't useful except to surprise users. The
ability to continue to serve expired files if there are other active
links in the database is also of dubious value. Dropping the
LibraryFileCont
nullable might be a better approach and would not have major impact on
the codebase. We would lose history of the hashes and filesize of an
expired or deleted file, but I don't think anyone would care. I guess
Bjorn is the person to discuss this with.
-- www.stuartbisho p.net/
Stuart Bishop <email address hidden>
http://