[tg-trunk] Re: [TurboGears] (tg-errors) Display error message in Alert Box
Em Monday 12 November 2007 04:06:17 Antony Joseph escreveu: hi, I am using validators for my form validations. I want to display my error message in alert box. How could i do this? Any suggestion , please... Take a look at a page with the error and customize your CSS to do what you want. (I'm assuming an alert box is not a window with the error, if it is then you will have to play more tricks with Javascript). -- Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] TGLightwindow is not working
hi
This my code :
1.from TGLightWindow.widgets import lightwindow
lightwindow=lightwindow()
2.script type=text/javascript
src=../static/javascript/prototype.js/script
script type=text/javascript
src=../static/javascript/lightwindow.js/script
script type=text/javascript
src=../static/javascript/scriptaculous.js?load=effects/script
3.tda href=# onclick=edit('${User.id}')
params=lightwindow_type=external class=lightwindow page-optionsimg
src=${tg.url('/static/images/edit.png')}//a/td
Error :
lightwindow.js requires including script.aculo.us' effects.js library!
Can anyone tell what i missed..
Thanks
Antony
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
TurboGears Trunk group.
To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: ORM Default: Elixir or Plain SA
On Nov 11, 2007 10:38 PM, iain duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] IMHO that's no really Machiavellist, just realistic. The people who will Nicholas Machiavelli was a hardcore realistic just a little bit cynical... At the end of the day I perceive him mainly as a democracy advocate living in a difficult period :-) Florent. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: tgsetup*.py
On Nov 11, 2007 10:42 PM, iain duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 12:22 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: Florent Aide wrote: Hi all, Just let me know how I could help maintain it. Noted! I am on other things right now but I'll come back on this... and if I don't please bug me on this list to make sure I do it :) Florent. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: turbocheetah
On Nov 11, 2007 10:18 PM, Christoph Zwerschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apropos Cheetah, I wonder whether we should replace Cheetah with Tempita (http://pythonpaste.org/tempita/). It's pure Python, more lightweight than Cheetah, integrates well with Paste and, as Ian Bicking noted, will eventually be required by TG 2.0 anyway, since it's needed by weberror. I suggest making that move in TG 1.1 already, i.e. use Tempita for the quickstart templates. TG should also support Tempita's HTMLTemplate as an alternative HTML templating language. For deployment purposes yes... but what about templating? What is the difference in terms of performance? I don't use it so I cannot say for sure... I'll let the people who use it tell us. I have an idea that the c extension is quicker that a pure python implementation... Florent. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: 2008 and python 2.3
Mark Ramm schrieb: What are the thoughts from the rest of tg community? I'm using TG on RHEL/CentOS 4 servers so obviously I'd like to see TG supported on Python 2.3 :-) Furthermore, most Macs do come only with Python 2.3 (IIRC!). But I do understand that supporting 2.3 will increase developer workload (I wrote several patches for 2.3 compatibility myself earlier this year) so I would accept dropping 2.3 support for new releases and just keep it for 1.0.x. If an old Python version will be dropped, I suggest that there should be a general policy to support (at least) the last two (or three) major versions of Python so everyone has enough time to upgrade their installation. Probably this question should be placed on the user group to get more feedback. One last point for keeping 2.3: The stats on http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/TurboGears do show the same number of downloads (23 at the time of writing) for the 2.3 egg as for 2.4. fs smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[tg-trunk] Re: turbocheetah
Florent Aide wrote: On Nov 11, 2007 10:18 PM, Christoph Zwerschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apropos Cheetah, I wonder whether we should replace Cheetah with Tempita (http://pythonpaste.org/tempita/). It's pure Python, more lightweight than Cheetah, integrates well with Paste and, as Ian Bicking noted, will eventually be required by TG 2.0 anyway, since it's needed by weberror. I suggest making that move in TG 1.1 already, i.e. use Tempita for the quickstart templates. TG should also support Tempita's HTMLTemplate as an alternative HTML templating language. For deployment purposes yes... but what about templating? What is the difference in terms of performance? I don't use it so I cannot say for sure... I'll let the people who use it tell us. I have an idea that the c extension is quicker that a pure python implementation... No, I didn't say we should stop supporting Cheetah for HTML views. But Cheetah shouldn't be required any more when it will not be needed for the quickstart templates any more. But you should still have the option of using Cheetah for your HTML views, plus there should be the additional option of using Tempita for that purpose as well. -- Chris --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: turbocheetah
On Nov 12, 2007 7:27 PM, Christoph Zwerschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] No, I didn't say we should stop supporting Cheetah for HTML views. But Cheetah shouldn't be required any more when it will not be needed for the quickstart templates any more. But you should still have the option of using Cheetah for your HTML views, plus there should be the additional option of using Tempita for that purpose as well. Ok, all is well then :-) I am quite ok that we should not require Cheetah just for our internal quickstart use. Florent. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: 2008 and python 2.3
I would argue that the picture should look like this: * TurboGears 1.0.x will work on Python 2.3 or greater. * TurboGears 1.1.x will work on Python 2.4 or greater. * TurboGears 2.0.x will work on Python 2.4 or greater. I just don't see Python 2.5 being as widely deployed yet as 2.4. Give it a year or two, and then we can start requiring Python 2.5 for TurboGears 2.1 or 3.0 :) Screw that, I think TurboGears 2 should be python 3000 only. ;) Ok, just kidding. But if generic functions with pedicate dispatch had made it into python 3.0, it's actually possible that I would have tried to make that argument. But as it is, I think 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 3.0 is going to be more than enough versions to try to support. And 2.6/3.0 aren't really that far off! --Mark Ramm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: tgsetup*.py
On Nov 11, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Florent Aide wrote: I do have some concerns about tgsetup: - First is is not properly in the svn since it is maintained in the website instead of being part of the source code of TG. - It is not really maintained and I'd like to have someone help us on this particular point. - I'd like to be able to provide a real off-line installation archive that would ensure that we can install TG and all its dependencies without any access to the net. This could become a project on its own but could have real benefits. - I feel we really need to fix tgsetup to remove all objections raised by Graham or we must remove tgsetup alltogether and ensure easy_install will work. At the moment easy_install works better than tgsetup even if not perfectly. It seems to be me that that tg_setup is superfluous, and that fixing setup.py might be the best course of action. Setuptools/easy_install has the option --find-links that injects a series of directories and/or URLs into the dependency search path. At that point packages can be collected in a subdirectory along with the source, or they can be placed on a generic website somewhere with a layout that setuptools groks. (Where they currently are for tgsetup?) Then setuptools handles the rest. It might also behoove the project to include a recent version of setuptools and the bootstrapping code to auto-install it if needed. (It eliminates one more step from the process of doing a virgin installation.) - Jeff Younker - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Hi all, http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears/browse_thread/thread/ 5de762aa37455c7/d010b45cabae7cff?lnk=gstq=tgsetup#d010b45cabae7cff same in tiny format: http://tinyurl.com/27b8ef Regards, Florent. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: tgsetup*.py
On Nov 12, 2007 2:49 AM, Jeff Younker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 11, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Florent Aide wrote: I do have some concerns about tgsetup: - First is is not properly in the svn since it is maintained in the website instead of being part of the source code of TG. - It is not really maintained and I'd like to have someone help us on this particular point. - I'd like to be able to provide a real off-line installation archive that would ensure that we can install TG and all its dependencies without any access to the net. This could become a project on its own but could have real benefits. - I feel we really need to fix tgsetup to remove all objections raised by Graham or we must remove tgsetup alltogether and ensure easy_install will work. At the moment easy_install works better than tgsetup even if not perfectly. It seems to be me that that tg_setup is superfluous, and that fixing setup.py might be the best course of action. Setuptools/easy_install has the option --find-links that injects a series of directories and/or URLs into the dependency search path. Yes, --find-links is the way tg_setup works. It's basicly a wrapper around easy_install adding --find-links and some other options. The problem was/is that people try easy_install Turbogears and it fails. It seems that with 1.0.4b2 atleast it works fine. I think that we should get rid of tg_setup in favor for easy_install. This means we have to have dependencies that are stable and easy_install'able, which is something we should do anyway IMHO. At that point packages can be collected in a subdirectory along with the source, or they can be placed on a generic website somewhere with a layout that setuptools groks. (Where they currently are for tgsetup?) Then setuptools handles the rest. It might also behoove the project to include a recent version of setuptools and the bootstrapping code to auto-install it if needed. (It eliminates one more step from the process of doing a virgin installation.) - Jeff Younker - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Hi all, http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears/browse_thread/thread/5de762aa37455c7/d010b45cabae7cff?lnk=gstq=tgsetup#d010b45cabae7cff same in tiny format: http://tinyurl.com/27b8ef Regards, Florent. -- cheers elvelind grandin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[tg-trunk] Re: 2008 and python 2.3
I agree, get rid of 2.3. Not having function decorators is sort of rediculous. On Nov 12, 11:36 am, Mark Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would argue that the picture should look like this: * TurboGears 1.0.x will work on Python 2.3 or greater. * TurboGears 1.1.x will work on Python 2.4 or greater. * TurboGears 2.0.x will work on Python 2.4 or greater. I just don't see Python 2.5 being as widely deployed yet as 2.4. Give it a year or two, and then we can start requiring Python 2.5 for TurboGears 2.1 or 3.0 :) Screw that, I think TurboGears 2 should be python 3000 only. ;) Ok, just kidding. But if generic functions with pedicate dispatch had made it into python 3.0, it's actually possible that I would have tried to make that argument. But as it is, I think 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 3.0 is going to be more than enough versions to try to support. And 2.6/3.0 aren't really that far off! --Mark Ramm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears Trunk group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
