Hello,
when I want to use my own Folder implementation as a homefolder I have two
possibilities at the moment:
1) Disable autoCreate and create the homefolder myself.
2) Write a completely own implementation of IHomeFolderManager, use the
existing code, only change the line
Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only non-standard part left in the release name if we drop the
double 3 is the X. The X is a bit of a bother and will get us into
trouble anyway eventually if a Zope 3 proper is ever released, as I
can't see how we'd avoid situations where we'd
Jim Fulton wrote:
Dominik Huber wrote:
Excuse me late response I was busy that weekend...
Jim Fulton wrote:
I fixed that issue within the branch
'Zope3/branches/dominik-locatableadapters'
Jim, could you take a look at that please. Thank you very much in
advance!
[...]
We should *only* add the
IIRC, it was supposed to go:
2.7 - 2.8 - 2.9 - 3.0 (merge)
X3.0 - X3.1 - 3.0 (merge)
And that was the whole point of putting X in front of the 3, so you would
know it was not really Zope 3.0, but X3.
Jake
--
http://www.ZopeZone.com
Stephan Richter said:
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:18,
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:07, Jake wrote:
2.7 - 2.8 - 2.9 - 3.0 (merge)
I think this will probably still happen.
X3.0 - X3.1 - 3.0 (merge)
I do not think this will happen. In fact, I am getting a strange feeling that
we will have both, 3.x and X3.x, around for a long time, since some
Gh Why oh why ? The document is now totally unreadable, except
by reading a generated .ps or .pdf. That's not the way to go for
documentation :(
Florent
PS: also the add/remove should be in the same svn changeset.
Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log message for revision
Stephan Richter wrote:
My suspicion is that the Zope 2 code base will eventually become the Zope 3
code base as all Zope X3 pieces get merged into it via Five. Once we
completely fade out the Zope 2 code, we can call it Zope 4.
+1 from me...
So lets just call it Zope 3 for now...
Chris
--
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:42, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Gh Why oh why ? The document is now totally unreadable, except
by reading a generated .ps or .pdf. That's not the way to go for
documentation :(
Remember that this document has to be read by an independent third party and
Well, that sounds like a nightmare.
So we might have X3.1, 3.0 being released at the same time? Talk about
confusing to the outside world.
This needs some rethinking.
Jake
--
http://www.ZopeZone.com
Stephan Richter said:
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:07, Jake wrote:
2.7 - 2.8 - 2.9 - 3.0
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:36, Jake wrote:
I agree.
Drop the X when X3 has 2X support in it.
Something you and Chris do not address is how to call the version of Zope 3
that will not have Zope 2 support. I, for one, and probably many others still
want to have *pure* Zope 3 releases
Hi,
* Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050420 15:59]:
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:42, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Gh Why oh why ? The document is now totally unreadable, except
by reading a generated .ps or .pdf. That's not the way to go for
documentation :(
Ok. I should have
Dominik Huber wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Dominik Huber wrote:
Excuse me late response I was busy that weekend...
Jim Fulton wrote:
I fixed that issue within the branch
'Zope3/branches/dominik-locatableadapters'
Jim, could you take a look at that please. Thank you very much in
advance!
[...]
We
I was hoping to stay out of this discussion, but ...
1. There will be many more releases of Zope 2, including
2-digit releases like 2.10, 2.11, etc.
2. The X in Zope 3X means that there is not yet support for
Zope 2 transition. It's about setting expectations.
I'm OK with dropping the X
Hey,
I think the most sane would be:
Zope 2.8 - Zope 2.9 - Zope 2.x, for however many iterations it's
necessary. Zope 2 will grow some Zope 3 forward compatibility with Five,
but this depends on Five contributors. Right now, we're doing fairly
well and we hope this keeps up.
Zope X3.0 - Zope
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
* Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050420 15:59]:
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:42, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Gh Why oh why ? The document is now totally unreadable, except
by reading a generated .ps or .pdf. That's not the way to go for
documentation :(
Ok.
Tres,
I get every mail from you twice.
One header says:
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])by
mail.zope.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0513920334D
the other:
Received: from smtp.zope.com (smtp.zope.com [206.16.200.4]) by
mail.zope.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
Jim Fulton wrote:
It is not generally the case that you need to use separate security
declarations with trusted adapters.
I declare those additional class directive all the time if I'm using
trusted adapters.
IMO this kind of registration is the common pattern
For example stephan richter uses
addendum...
I tried to implement your solution [Revision 30053], but then I
noticed the following problems:
1. no permission (None) and zope.Public within a trusted adapter
registration provokes different behavior (example below
KeyReferenceToPersistent)
2. the zwiki bug and my related
Hi,
Does anyone know how to build a standalone ZPT package from Zope 3 using
zpkgtools?
To make matters more fun, it's on Windows ;-)
I got this far:
C:\LocalSVN\zpkgtoolsbin\zpkg.py
--resource-map=svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/ReleaseSupport/trunk/PackageMaps/zope3.map
-ca ZPT
Traceback
19 matches
Mail list logo
