[Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] Opaque items
Hi there, I am currently migrating our CMS from CMF 1.X to CMF 2.1. The following error is raised because the original content classes are not derived from CMFCatalogAware. # Module Products.HaufeCMS.DataLevel.Folder, line 170, in addDocument # Module Products.BTreeFolder2.BTreeFolder2, line 428, in _setObject # Module zope.event, line 23, in notify # Module zope.component.event, line 26, in dispatch # Module zope.component._api, line 130, in subscribers # Module zope.component.registry, line 290, in subscribers # Module zope.interface.adapter, line 535, in subscribers # Module zope.component.event, line 33, in objectEventNotify # Module zope.component._api, line 130, in subscribers # Module zope.component.registry, line 290, in subscribers # Module zope.interface.adapter, line 535, in subscribers # Module Products.CMFCore.CMFCatalogAware, line 280, in dispatchToOpaqueItems # Module Products.HaufeCMS.DataLevel.Component.Component, line 829, in __getattr__ # Module Products.HaufeCMS.DataLevel.MetaData, line 116, in __getattr__ Is it now a requirement in CMF 2.x to derive from CMFCatalogAware or would it be sufficient to implement the opaqueXXX() methods on our own? Andreas begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] Opaque items
On 29.06.09 08:43, David Glick wrote: From http://dev.plone.org/old/plone/browser/plone.app.discussion/trunk/plone/app/discussion/comment.py#L83 and following lines it would appear you can do the latter. Thanks - adding the related hooks returning () solves the problem. The strange thing in my case is that CMFCatalogAware tried to call opaqueValues() for an instance of a class derived from CMFSite :- Andreas begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [GenericSetup] Extension profile re-installing base profile
We are currently migration from Zope 2.8/CMF 1.X to Zope 2.11/CMF 2.1. I have a minimal base profile and two almost identical extension profiles for product A and B (both containing toolset.xml, skins.xml and import_steps.xml). The setup code is almost identical with the one from CMFDefault.factory.addConfiguredSiteForm(). So what's happening: - creating a CMF site with the base profile + extension profile for A works as expected - creating a CMF site with the base profile + extension profile for B works but the setuphandler code of the base profile is executed twice (triggered through the installation of the extension profile for B) - creating a CMF site with the base profile + both extension profiles for A + B fails with a 'Exisiting registration...' error General question: what might be the reason for extension profile B to trigger the reinstallation of the base profile (and its setuphandler)? Andresa begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] IIndexableObjectWrapper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05.04.2009 16:36 Uhr, Martin Aspeli wrote: yuppie wrote: Martin Aspeli wrote: Plone 3.3's IIndexableObjectWrapper implementation (in plone.indexer) has a method _getWrappedObject(), to return the object that was wrapped by the indexable object wrapper. It is (or rather, will be) used by TextIndexNG3, which needs to access the raw object during indexing. Why is there a need to access the raw object? The wrapper should provide all the interfaces and attributes required for indexing. TextIndexNG3 does some deeper inspection on the object. It basically needs to bypass some of the things that are ordinarily intercepted by the wrapper. Andreas Jung will have to give more detail, but it feels prudent to me to have some kind of API to get the wrapped object for cases like this in any case. If there are some requirements for TXNG3, I will work on TXNG 3.3.0 soon again. Also Wichert made (or intended) to make some related changes within the TXNG core directly due an incompatibility with TXNG 3.2.X and the newest Plone 3.2 release (coming with an updated CMF version). Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknjlS4ACgkQCJIWIbr9KYx3dwCeO4ofLAEAQ33IuxKHk1MEITm+ cFEAoJDv9k6lNntg0wsYD+mM1JgyRAO7 =+M+B -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Weird catalog behaviour
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 28.01.2009 15:33 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote: Hi, is there any reason why a portal_catalog.searchResults() returns an empty result set when called on the command line but not from within ZMI? It is the same catalog and I can items to it but I just can't run a search on it. Any ideas? Command-line (zopectl debug?): you're anonymous ZMI: you're authenticated The catalog adds additional filters under the hood in order to filter out content you are not allowed to see. - -aj -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkmAbzoACgkQCJIWIbr9KYxa5wCeMxC9OOWcehNRUKz9xgncs6P/ WC4AoOlcfKL0NtfsqnK0p2FsfDB6o5U0 =Idk4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Weird catalog behaviour
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 28.01.2009 15:52 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote: Am 28.01.2009 um 15:44 schrieb Andreas Jung: Command-line (zopectl debug?): you're anonymous ZMI: you're authenticated The catalog adds additional filters under the hood in order to filter out content you are not allowed to see. That could be the explanation - how can I authenticate myself in zopectl debug? from AccessControl.SecurityManagement import newSecurityManager user = app.acl_users.getUser(user_name_or_id) newSecurityManager(None, user.__of__(app.acl_users)) Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkmAcZIACgkQCJIWIbr9KYz0eACeKS60A0Ul3K9R5UOWpA10kB1g j+AAoKnST3497uMEmZcmQlgS3zxWG7Ji =Kv1B -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF write performance as poor as Plone?
So weit bei mir nichts dazwischen kommt könnte ich ab 13h. Gruß, Andreas On 22.11.2008 15:39 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote: zop Am 21.11.2008 um 07:31 schrieb Andreas Jung: hmmso why is CMF here nearly as bad a Plone. In Plone we know that everything is indexed various times (also in CMF I think) but Plone has much more indexes and metadata compared to CMF. A request in Plone goes through much more layers than in CMFI am currently clueless interpreting the results. My current interpretation is: a custom CMF-based implementation of a CMS will be comparable slow/ fast as an out-of-the-box solution?! begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF write performance as poor as Plone?
On 22.11.2008 15:39 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote: Hi Andreas, a very interesting situation. I've never thought of object creation when choosing pure CMF over Plone as this is largely a ZODB issue. As Roché points out it is less likely to be the transactions and more likely to be the cataloguing and any other event subscribers that are limiting factors here. Speed comparions between CMF and Plone only make sense for serving content where I find pure CMF to be at least 10 times as fast as Plone - I think the speed difference is largely down to the sheer size of Archetypes and the overloading of getattr(). The catalog is of course a hotspot. There is collective.indexing and the catalog queue that ease the pain a bit and bring some improvements to the overall performance (for both Plone and CMF) - however not as satisfying as I was thinking of. Going with a RDBMS as backend is likely the only option when it comes scalablity on a system with lots of concurrent write. Andreas begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF write performance as poor as Plone?
On 23.11.2008 11:57 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote: Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung: This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were running on the same (fast) machine. Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB? I am talking of the standard content-types that are available in CMF and Plone like Document, News etc. I'm just thinking of an environment with lots of concurrent writes and content management doesn't spring directly to mind. Write performance specially in Plone in always a topic in large installations. Read performance is doable on large installations with caching etc. But we know of several Plone projects that failed at some point because you can't get a reasonable performance with lots of editors working the same time with the system. If that isn't possible then you will probably have to look at using an RDBMS and even then you might need server-side optimisations for performance? I just benchmarked that. I just wrote a a simple RDBMS-based Document implementation (using SQLAlchemy and table inheritance for sharing the dublin core table structure among different content-types). Against a Postgres 7.4 database I could reach a performance of roughly 350 new documents per second with a pure python implementation. I am now going to test the performance of the implementation with a CMF integration. Andreas begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] CMF write performance as poor as Plone?
Hi there, we are currently doing consultancy work for a bigger Zope-based CMS project (lotes of users, lots of concurrent editors/write). Plone and CMF are basically what we are looking into right now. It is well-known that Plone is poor on concurrent write. It is basically impossible creating more than 3-4 objects per second on decent hardware. On observation we made was that Plone causes transaction size of 30k-100k per each new object (this is also true trivial changes on existing content objects). So I thought this might be a limiting factor and looked at CMF. The transaction sizes under CMF are much smaller - typically between 2k and 4k for new objects or object changes which is looking good at the first glance. However the transaction size does not seem to have any impact on the number of simulataneous writes. I wrote script simple script like this: results_folder[randint(1,500)].invokeFactory(Document, some_id) where result_folder is a btree based folder containing 500 other empty btree folders. Running 'ab2 -n 100' against the site would create 100 new documents distributed over the subfolder (avoid conflicts errors here). The performance was nearly as bad as with Plone. It was hard getting more 4-6 new objects per second out of a standard CMF site (2.1, zope.schema-based types). Even variations of the zserver-threads and the ab2 concurrency level did not help much. hmmso why is CMF here nearly as bad a Plone. In Plone we know that everything is indexed various times (also in CMF I think) but Plone has much more indexes and metadata compared to CMF. A request in Plone goes through much more layers than in CMFI am currently clueless interpreting the results. My current interpretation is: a custom CMF-based implementation of a CMS will be comparable slow/fast as an out-of-the-box solution?! Thoughts? Andreas -- ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376 Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, Handelsregister A 381535 Geschäftsführer/Gesellschafter: ZOPYX Limited, Birmingham, UK E-Publishing, Python, Zope Plone development, Consulting begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Debugging GenericSetup?
Hi there, I am currently working on an extension profile for a Plone content-type with two content-types. Right now I am in the situation where the content-type isn't added to portal_types although the configuration under types/MyType.xml and types.xml are obviously there and correct. I am under the impression that GS is silently ignoring bugs instead of raising them. Is there no other way for hunting down such an issue like using pdb? Andreas begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Debugging GenericSetup?
On 18.10.2008 10:16 Uhr, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:12 , Andreas Jung wrote: Hi there, I am currently working on an extension profile for a Plone content- type with two content-types. Right now I am in the situation where the content-type isn't added to portal_types although the configuration under types/MyType.xml and types.xml are obviously there and correct. I am under the impression that GS is silently ignoring bugs instead of raising them. Is there no other way for hunting down such an issue like using pdb? pdb is what I would use. *shiver* it's hard for me getting the extension profile working (basically playing trialerror)...nearly impossible for integrators :- Andreas begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: What is the status of GS wiping catalog indexes on catalog.xml import?
--On 29. Februar 2008 08:39:05 + Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, we should also provide a way to get an interface or something else describing the configuration for introspection purposes. Waiting one or two Zope versions for that to get a non-purging GS import handler when there's a works-90%-of-the-time solution (falling back on current behaviour) would be a shame though. You don't have to wait for for new Zope versions. Defining the interface officially in Zope 2.10, 2.11 and trunk will raise no problems. I have no problems with putting this into the official release branches - or? Andreas pgpKFtun9qiGV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: What is the status of GS wiping catalog indexes on catalog.xml import?
--On 29. Februar 2008 14:07:57 +0100 Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 29, 2008, at 13:17 , Andreas Jung wrote: --On 29. Februar 2008 13:09:01 +0100 Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My personal opinion: I'd rather see the interface-based solution in a few weeks or a couple months (the next Zope release) than the, umh, less-than-professional solution that will stick around forever. As such solutions have a tendency to do. It works now absolves everyone from the task to come back later and improve the solution, so no one does. Sorry, I can't follow...what is the outcome? I volunteer to add the interface to the Zope 2.10-2.11 branches and trunk right now. This would be good enough for you for writing the related adapter. The related code can be moved already into the Zope core on the trunk (but not for any of the release branches). I misunderstood one thing here. You only talked about the interface, but I kept thinking implementation as well :-) So my desired outcome was implementation plus interface, so that everything is ready to be used with the next release. I gave you the interface and you'll put the implementations as adapters for all indexes you need into GS. With the interface alone we only help those indices that are not part of Zope itself, since the Zope core indices apparently won't be able to have a working implementation until Zope 2.12 comes around..? Sure - through adaptation with the GS core. You can of course depend at some point that the core indices implement the behavior on their own. But adapter approach allows you to deal with the GS problem right now and you don't have to wait until Zope 2.12. Andreas pgpKs1BoMytgq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: What is the status of GS wiping catalog indexes on catalog.xml import?
--On 29. Februar 2008 16:45:19 +0100 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On 28. Februar 2008 09:38:31 +0100 yuppie y.2008-E2EsyBC0hj3+aS/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd prefer a IConfigurableIndex interface that also has a set method. I added the IIndexConfiguration to the Zope trunk. I don't think that a set method is a good idea. Removing and re-adding is possibly the cleanest solution. Some indexes might perform some configurations within their constructor. Calling clear() would not be enough for getting their configuration right. All the export/import adapters shipped with GenericSetup and the adapter shipped with TextIndexNG3 *modify* the indexes and call clear(). AFAICT this works fine. And with an official set method it would no longer be a hack. Switching to the remove-and-re-add pattern would not be easy. So just go ahead and define the interface as you need it :-) Andreas pgpsRvw2eJ63k.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: What is the status of GS wiping catalog indexes on catalog.xml import?
--On 28. Februar 2008 20:35:09 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-2-28 07:13 +0100: --On 27. Februar 2008 21:59:58 + Maurits van Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: greenman, on 2008-02-27: So, for the catalog.xml importer, why can't the trigger for reindexing an index be a flag on the catalog index declaration itself? Is it really generic setups role to determine if changes to an index invalidate the values it already holds? If you were to change properties of an index through code and not GS, then it would be up to you whether you reindexed all your objects or not. The problem is that GenericSetup does not know if your current index is of the same type and has the same settings/properties as the index that you specify in catalog.xml. Apparently it is hard/impossible to reliably compare the existing and the wanted index. So GenericSetup has no choice but to remove the existing index and make a new one. How about the following idea: - within the Zope core we define an _optional_ interface for indexes - something like: class IIndexConfiguration(Interface): def getConfiguration(): Returns a dict with index specific configuration parameters. - on the CMF/GS side we could register adapter for each index type we know (basically the Zope 2 core indexes, ExtendedPathIndex, TextIndexNG 3) and retrieve the related information I do not understand why something like this should be necessary. When the export handler is able to extract all relevant configuration parameters for an index, why should the import handler not be able to check the configuration parameters in a profile against an existing index and determine that it needs to do nothing? Huh? Because we're looking for a clean solution and not for a hack! Because this solution is extensible. An index can provide the introspection directly or another application could implement the functionality as needed through adaption. Having something hardcoded for each index type within the setuphandlers is a hacker solution. And the setuphandler should ideally not know about index internals. Andreas pgpjgcir8gdA7.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: What is the status of GS wiping catalog indexes on catalog.xml import?
--On 27. Februar 2008 21:59:58 + Maurits van Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: greenman, on 2008-02-27: So, for the catalog.xml importer, why can't the trigger for reindexing an index be a flag on the catalog index declaration itself? Is it really generic setups role to determine if changes to an index invalidate the values it already holds? If you were to change properties of an index through code and not GS, then it would be up to you whether you reindexed all your objects or not. The problem is that GenericSetup does not know if your current index is of the same type and has the same settings/properties as the index that you specify in catalog.xml. Apparently it is hard/impossible to reliably compare the existing and the wanted index. So GenericSetup has no choice but to remove the existing index and make a new one. How about the following idea: - within the Zope core we define an _optional_ interface for indexes - something like: class IIndexConfiguration(Interface): def getConfiguration(): Returns a dict with index specific configuration parameters. - on the CMF/GS side we could register adapter for each index type we know (basically the Zope 2 core indexes, ExtendedPathIndex, TextIndexNG 3) and retrieve the related information - the related GS asks each index for its configuration and takes appropriate action based on the comparison of the values from the profile and the existing index. Adding the interface to Zope 2.11 or backporting it to Zope 2.10 would not be a problem. Since the Zope 2.11 branch is offically closed for new features, the index specific implementations of IIndexConfiguration should be implemented outside the Zope core but we might move the implementation into the Zope core with Zope 2.12. Sounds reasonable? Andreas pgpA8OQK4gGQ3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Decode for Record objects
--On 10. Januar 2008 11:41:49 +0100 Charlie Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A happy 2008 to everyone! Currently it's not really possible to use ZSQL with CMF because CMFDefault.utils.decode does not know how to handle Shared.DC.ZRDB.Results.Results or Record.Record instances I think that the decode could be extended to be able to work with Results and Records returning lists of dictionaries and dictionaries respectively. Alternatively it might be best to enforce unicode in Shared.DC.ZRDC.Results Consider working with SQLAlchemy. SA works nicely with unicode e.g. when you're using a Postgres DB with Unicode as internal DB encoding. -aj pgpmUe2OT89qO.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Buildout recipe for CMF?
Hi, is there a buildout recipe that can unpack the CMF source archive properly? The problem is basically that the top-level folder contains the products as subdirectories. So the product dirs must be moved or linked. Andreas -- ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376 Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, Handelsregister A 381535 Geschäftsführer/Gesellschafter: ZOPYX Limited, Birmingham, UK E-Publishing, Python, Zope Plone development, Consulting pgpGX2Xt0N0s5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Move CMF collector to Launchpad (redux)
--On 27. Oktober 2007 20:58:26 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2007-10-25 12:37 +0200: ... I personally had one remaining issue, namely the fact that my main browser (OmniWeb) could not display Launchpad at all due to a CSS bug in OW itself. I still have a similar issue: in my browser (Mozilla 1.5), launchpad pages are unreadable: almost the complete page is covered by red signs of the form --\. You can solve this by upgrading to a more recent browser. -aj pgpZTu82oXDtc.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [CMF2.1/Plone 3.0] Random recataloging errors
Hi all, while recataloging a Plone 3.0.1 site I encounter sometimes the following error with _some_ ATDocument instances (while other ATDocument instances indexing properly)...known bug? Andreas --- 007-10-22 01:04:46 ERROR Zope.ZCatalog Recataloging object at /fml-migrated/fml failed Traceback (most recent call last): File /home/blohn/fml/parts/zope2/lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/ZCatalog.py, line 296, in refreshCatalog self.catalog_object(obj, p, pghandler=pghandler) File /home/blohn/fml/parts/plone/CMFPlone/CatalogTool.py, line 386, in catalog_object update_metadata, pghandler=pghandler) File /home/blohn/fml/parts/zope2/lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/ZCatalog.py, line 535, in catalog_object update_metadata=update_metadata) File /home/blohn/fml/parts/zope2/lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/Catalog.py, line 348, in catalogObject self.updateMetadata(object, uid) File /home/blohn/fml/parts/zope2/lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/Catalog.py, line 277, in updateMetadata newDataRecord = self.recordify(object) File /home/blohn/fml/parts/zope2/lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/Catalog.py, line 417, in recordify if(attr is not MV and safe_callable(attr)): attr=attr() File /home/blohn/fml/parts/plone/CMFDynamicViewFTI/browserdefault.py, line 80, in __call__ return template(context, context.REQUEST) AttributeError: REQUEST pgpndeaJifoaM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] howto avoid loading of datetime-objects when accessing a portal_catalog brain
--On 19. Oktober 2007 10:03:43 +0200 Joachim Schmitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, If one iterates over the result of a portal_catalog search, for each brain there are about 8 datetime objects loaded (one for each dateindex), which quickly fills the memory. how can I access only the brain id, or postpone the loading of the datetime objects until I really access them ? This would work only if the DateTime objects would be persistent subobjects. -aj pgplg8TuHoCio.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF collector on Launchpad?
--On 21. September 2007 18:11:33 +0200 Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21 Sep 2007, at 17:44, Andreas Jung wrote: We are currently working on the migration of the Zope 2 bugtracker. Jim asked about the migration of the CMF bugtracker...the discussion on this list was pretty much undecided...anyone of the CMF core developers should say yes or no. I don't care much about the CMF trackerit's basically your decision. The earlier discussion kind of derailed when it swung to the suggestion to move the CMF collector into a trac-based setup already used by Plone, and no consensus was reached either way. I definitely know I don't want trac - I've been using it extensively for a project I am working on and hate the way it handles email to the people who are involved in an issue, and it also doesn't put the full issue conversation into the notification emails, so you're forced to open a web browser and look it up. Since there is no strong vote either way I'll go out on a limb and say let's just keep the situation as it is right now and stick with zope.org. Point taken...less work for Jim :-) Tnx, Andreas pgpIuJsdTv4x2.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Design approach questions: unique content-ish items?
--On 14. September 2007 15:21:28 -0400 Doyon, Jean-Francois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, So, I have this situation happen often enough, and I'm not sure what would be the best way to approach it. The context is a Zope + CMF (latest) framework deigned to host multiple sites, but where the content management part is purely internal, we manage sites internally, and the public facing part is not interactive to users, they can't log-in, register, or anything like that. I have object types that need to exist just once, but need to do much more than a standard tool is expected to. The basic example is the search functionality and user interfaces. Less obvious is a key feature of one major client site where they have a mapping tool (as in geographical maps), and many other parts of the site revolve around it, link to it, etc ... It's in many ways a utility, but also a contentish/fodlerish type! I cannot assume WHERE such an object might be wanted, one client site could want it in one folder, and another in the root (becaue of navigation, breadcrumbs, individual site layouts, etc ...). I would create a standard CMF-ish content-type. You can check at creation time if such an object already exists (through a catalog search). If yes, you throw an exception, if not you proceedshould be trivial... -aj pgp1IfWkDgadp.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] regarding REQUEST
--On 12. September 2007 12:07:54 +0530 mrajasekhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: def fun1(self): REQUEST=self.REQUEST fun2=self.veiws.fun3 return fun2(self,REQUEST=REQUEST) what is the meaning of REQUEST=self.REQUEST The REQUEST is always available as part of the current object - usually referenced as 'context' in PythonScripts, 'context' or 'here' in ZPTs or when using 'self' within the implemetation of a Zope class. There is nothing specific about CMF here. in the above function.what is it doing and iam returning fun2 to the browser please explain me in detail If the method expects a REQUEST object (for whatever reason) you have to pass it in. A method of a persistent object could also take the REQUEST from 'self' -aj pgpgEqdLt0Zdk.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF collector on Launchpad?
--On 13. August 2007 10:49:36 +0200 Hanno Schlichting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A common user database between the Plone and CMF bug trackers is a bigger benefit than the common user base between CMF and Zope I think. But maybe our two communities still don't overlap enough for that idea to work out ;) -1 Andreas pgpih559rVnZj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] pdf generation
--On 25. Juli 2007 14:36:21 -0400 David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I'm using zope 2.7.8 and looking for a means generating a PDF document. I've googled and looked around a bit but everything seems rather dated (stuff from 2002). What are you all doing to deal with this these days? The requirement I need to meet is to build up a PDF document based on the contents of a form submission. My plan was to use formulator to build a form and write a script to process it and generate the PDF. You might also check zopyx.convert (Cheeseshop) to generate PDF, RTF, ODT, WML or DOCX from HTML. -aj pgpBDqCP5gXpS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [GenericSetup] One profile for different GS versions
Hi, I have an extension profile that works with Plone 3.0 (basically modifying portal_skins and portal_actions). For Plone 2.5 compatibility my actions.xml and skins.xml need to be different because the XML structure is different between. What is the best approach for maintaining XML files for both Plone 2.5 and Plone 3.0 in one profile (at least within the same source tree)? Andreas -- ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376 Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, Handelsregister A 381535 Geschäftsführer/Gesellschafter: ZOPYX Limited, Birmingham, UK E-Publishing, Python, Zope Plone development, Consulting pgpRbIATxL1Vc.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [GenericSetup] One profile for different GS versions
--On 18. Juli 2007 19:08:00 + Maurits van Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung, on 2007-07-18: I have an extension profile that works with Plone 3.0 (basically modifying = portal_skins and portal_actions). For Plone 2.5 compatibility my=20 actions.xml and skins.xml need to be different because the XML structure is = different between. What is the best approach for maintaining XML files for=20 both Plone 2.5 and Plone 3.0 in one profile (at least within the same source tree)? There might be some support for conditions in some of the xml files, but I am not aware of any. For portal_skins you can keep skins.xml (for Plone 3.0) and skins_2.5.xml (for Plone 2.5) within the default profile. Since the meta_type for portal_skins differs between Plone 2.5 and Plone 3.0 GS seems to pick up the right one in both cases. Unfortunatly this is not the case for portal_actions where the meta_type is identical in both Plone versions and at least the actions.xml (Plone 3.0) shadows actions_2.5.xml. -aj pgp1BLd19FRD5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [GS] ZODB error when importing an extension profile
I get the following error when importing an extension profile of my own product through the ZMI (portal_setup - Profiles - Extension Profiles - Click on my extension profile - Click on Import selected extensions). Using the latest Plone 3.0 version from Subversion and GS 1.2beta (appears to be the latest version from the trunk). Andreas ... 2007-06-24 18:02:11 ERROR Zope.SiteErrorLog http://g:8080/po/portal_setup/manage_importExtensions Traceback (innermost last): Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 119, in publish Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 88, in mapply Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 42, in call_object Module Products.GenericSetup.tool, line 527, in manage_importExtensions Module Products.GenericSetup.tool, line 1044, in _createReport Module OFS.ObjectManager, line 314, in _setObject Module OFS.ObjectManager, line 102, in checkValidId BadRequest: The id import-all-profile-Products.SmartPrintNG_smartprintng-20070624160211.log is invalid - it is already in use. 2007-06-24 18:02:11 ERROR ZODB.Connection Shouldn't load state for 0xf29d when the connection is closed Unhandled exception in thread started by class ZServer.PubCore.ZServerPublisher.ZServerPublisher at 0x2ab0e8fd8050 Traceback (most recent call last): File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/ZServer/PubCore/ZServerPublisher.py, line 25, in __init__ response=b) File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py, line 401, in publish_module environ, debug, request, response) File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py, line 227, in publish_module_standard if request is not None: request.close() File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPRequest.py, line 151, in close BaseRequest.close(self) File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/ZPublisher/BaseRequest.py, line 206, in close notify(EndRequestEvent(None, self)) File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/zope/event/__init__.py, line 23, in notify subscriber(event) File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/zope/component/event.py, line 26, in dispatch for ignored in zope.component.subscribers(event, None): File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/zope/component/_api.py, line 130, in subscribers return sitemanager.subscribers(objects, interface) File /opt/zope/2.10.3/lib/python/ZODB/Connection.py, line 746, in setstate raise ConnectionStateError(msg) ZODB.POSException.ConnectionStateError: Shouldn't load state for 0xf29d when the connection is closed pgpwyqBknQp8Z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [GS] ZODB error when importing an extension profile
--On 25. Juni 2007 13:07:18 +0200 Arnar Lundesgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 25. jun. 2007 kl. 12.50 skrev Andreas Jung: I get the following error when importing an extension profile of my own product through the ZMI (portal_setup - Profiles - Extension Profiles - Click on my extension profile - Click on Import selected extensions). Using the latest Plone 3.0 version from Subversion and GS 1.2beta (appears to be the latest version from the trunk). Not sure if it is related, but we had a similar issue with CMF 2.1b1 back in May. http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-May/026018.html The patch resolves the ZODB issue however this remains (no idea if this an issue with Plone or GS itself): Andreas Traceback (innermost last): * Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 119, in publish * Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 88, in mapply * Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 42, in call_object * Module Products.GenericSetup.tool, line 527, in manage_importExtensions * Module Products.GenericSetup.tool, line 1044, in _createReport * Module OFS.ObjectManager, line 314, in _setObject * Module OFS.ObjectManager, line 102, in checkValidId BadRequest: The id import-all-profile-Products.SmartPrintNG_smartprintng-20070625112841.log is invalid - it is already in use. pgps6BYLGe5pu.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Adding support for ReST to Document.py
--On 11. Juni 2007 17:37:26 +0200 Charlie Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, further to the discussion last month I'm about to provide a patch which will support ReST for Document.py plus a revised document_edit_template.pt 39, in ? from Products.PageTemplates.utils import encodingFromXMLPreamble, charsetFromMetaEquiv ImportError: No module named utils CMF 2.1 requires Zope 2.10. -aj pgpxnk0eVAodu.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [GenericSetup] site profiles vs. extension profiles
--On 16. März 2007 11:38:44 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this intentional? We are actually working to fix that exact problem here at the BBQ sprint. I will be checking in to this branch today (within the next hour or so): svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/GenericSetup/branches/tseaver-bbq_sprint This looks much better. However next question: when you create a CMF Site through the ZMI you have only CMFDefault site as setup profile which is perfectly fine. When you go to portal_setup after creating the site you'll further baseline profiles like Plone Site Simple PAS Content Profile...I assume that this is caused by those profile are registered for a subclass of ISiteRoot...that might be confusing a bit.. Andreas pgp4pVR61Tdau.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [GenericSetup] site profiles vs. extension profiles
While working with a customer with GenericSetup the following question came up: Within the Setup tools properties screen you can choose the active site configuration. The select box shows both site profiles and extension profile. In our understanding a site profile replaces an existing configuration when running the import for all steps in comparison to an incremental operation on the existing configuration when choosing an extension profile. However you can't distinguish the different profile types within the select element..this might be confusing because the behavior is different in both cases. Is this intentional? Andreas pgpb2pvIJeUAd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode
--On 5. Januar 2007 21:22:24 +0100 Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5 Jan 2007, at 20:51, Andreas Jung wrote: I finished my work (including some test). Any objections merging the changes back to the trunk? If the tests pass, no. At least from me ;) I merged the changes... hopefully without side-effects :-) Andreas pgp0VBlVpAIZs.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 20. Dezember 2006 19:34:22 +0100 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you look at the current FSPageTemplate code, there was already an attempt to find and transfer enoding information with the response by way of adding it to the content type, see _readFile. It does preamble sniffing as well. That could then be replaced by your own encoding detection, which also uses the preamble, and .metadata information. I created an experimental branch and added some more (hopefully) clever sniffing (which I added recently for the ZPT fixes on the HEAD). I finished my work (including some test). Any objections merging the changes back to the trunk? Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFnqwrCJIWIbr9KYwRAlCBAKCrgTJrgRM9A/QMlIeO6tURh1wRqwCgu450 R9uKzf+giagAh3cP6YKM7dk= =gt3u -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] zope spins when try to update workflow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 29. Dezember 2006 10:56:50 -0500 Edmund Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jens, Thanks for your generic answer. What details about my setup might help in figureing out how I could successfully update security without my server grinding to a halt. Zope 2.9.5, Python 2.4.4, Plone 2.5.1 4GB of physical memory 4GB of swap 2 Duo Core processors I have about 35,000 objects in the ZODB, but I'm sure this doesn't come close to the total amount of memory. We have a ZEO server and client on the same machine. Check out the Advanced tab of your portal_catalog. There is configuration setting (threshold or so) to enable subtransactions/savepoints. - -aj -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFlT3HCJIWIbr9KYwRAoJjAJ9vtwDwxs4qtJNjSg85gobC2OxgqwCeNUqv ef57BEY1opI46XFUkQuDIOg= =A86b -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] zope spins when try to update workflow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 29. Dezember 2006 11:17:27 -0500 Edmund Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 29. Dezember 2006 10:56:50 -0500 Edmund Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jens, Thanks for your generic answer. What details about my setup might help in figureing out how I could successfully update security without my server grinding to a halt. Zope 2.9.5, Python 2.4.4, Plone 2.5.1 4GB of physical memory 4GB of swap 2 Duo Core processors I have about 35,000 objects in the ZODB, but I'm sure this doesn't come close to the total amount of memory. We have a ZEO server and client on the same machine. Check out the Advanced tab of your portal_catalog. There is configuration setting (threshold or so) to enable subtransactions/savepoints. - -aj Thanks for this tip. Subtransactions are already enabled, and the threshold is set to 1. Should I drop this number? If so, by how much? 1 should be fine in most casesbut it depends on the size of your objects. Try to reduce it to 1000 and try again. Don't forget to restart before reindexing..Zope/Python won't free any memory (in most cases). - -aj -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFlUMCCJIWIbr9KYwRAoNaAJwNwwlvtL2xFedapEn7nKnZ2sM6UACfbGXT mwFmzzIY+FGs2atrN5lf1ZI= =hCBt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 19. Dezember 2006 09:58:37 +0100 Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19 Dec 2006, at 09:45, Andreas Jung wrote: Jup. However I am not completely sure about all impacts :-) If I understand the description correctly, the real change is in how the surrogate page template object representing the filesystem page template is created. The rendering itself is handed off to the pt_render method from the original PageTemplate class. Right. The pt_render() should return unicode only. Let's assume FSPageTemplates would use unicode internally and a customized copy (an instance of ZopePageTemplate) wouldn't then we would definitely run into UnicodeDecode errors. That's why we should use unicode as internal representation where possibly. However applications will likely run into UnicodeDecode error for example with scripts returning non-unicode... If you look at the current FSPageTemplate code, there was already an attempt to find and transfer enoding information with the response by way of adding it to the content type, see _readFile. It does preamble sniffing as well. That could then be replaced by your own encoding detection, which also uses the preamble, and .metadata information. I created an experimental branch and added some more (hopefully) clever sniffing (which I added recently for the ZPT fixes on the HEAD). Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFiYIvCJIWIbr9KYwRAoOGAJ4iOqjJkJokXW5W5O1bJJTDCeGkWwCgoBWQ bgkZc8ETfb+49kepMJ1DNuc= =ZWTb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 19. Dezember 2006 09:34:13 +0100 Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18 Dec 2006, at 13:52, Andreas Jung wrote: What has to be done: - FSPageTemplate._readFile() should convert 'data' to unicode and pass it to pt_edit() instead of using write() - a filesystem-based PT should be able to specify its encoding through the .metafile like [default] encoding=utf-8 For XML files the encoding is determines by the XML preamble and for HTML file we are able to check for the 'charset' inside meta http-equiv=content-type ... tag (if available) What do you think about this idea? Are you saying you'd help with patches? I'm swamped right now and don't think I can look at it. Jup. However I am not completely sure about all impacts :-) Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFh6aXCJIWIbr9KYwRAn8bAKDIQ5sUw8j7IbQMV7JRZeiXAdHGRQCfUr8K /ARKDtZHRtdywPqBBo7qFlU= =fjpK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You might have noticed that I have changed the ZopeTemplateFile implementation to work with unicode as internal representation. I think it would make sense for FSPageTemplate instance to use unicode as well - especially when ZPTs and FSPageTemplate live side by side. However FSPageTemplate inherits directly from PageTemplate. What has to be done: - FSPageTemplate._readFile() should convert 'data' to unicode and pass it to pt_edit() instead of using write() - a filesystem-based PT should be able to specify its encoding through the .metafile like [default] encoding=utf-8 For XML files the encoding is determines by the XML preamble and for HTML file we are able to check for the 'charset' inside meta http-equiv=content-type ... tag (if available) What do you think about this idea? How about the schedule? I would like to port my ZPT changes to the Zope 2.10 branch because the ZPT implementation is now partly broken and needs the fixes. However I don't know if the changes will play nicely with the upcoming CMF 2.1 release. I had no problem with a plain CMF site running on Zope 2.10.2 with my changes but we should ensure that are not big issues with the upcoming Plone 3.0 release (which requires Zope 2.10/CMF 2.1). Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFho8GCJIWIbr9KYwRAt9GAJwLS+t3vz95JUTDiB498+3YVLCCtACeNv1q aCFwpGMUg8VjlXJLXpqCKFw= =D/F6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] keywordIndex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 4. Dezember 2006 10:20:05 +0100 Daniel de la Cuesta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You told me:
Subject = {'query' : (kw1,kw2), 'operator' : 'and'}
That`s works fine. Thank you very much.
Now something more dificult, what about if 'kw1' and 'kw2' are list and
the
relation between the items of the list is OR??
Do you understand me?
I have: (kw1.1 OR kw1.2 .OR ... kw1.n) AND (kw2.1 OR kw2.2 OR .. kw2.n)
Check out AdvancedQuery.
- -aj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFFc+kZCJIWIbr9KYwRAs7pAJ9b0yYqzi8h4LyYTB+0HYdUy4/WbgCfT3vH
M8yh4egoCRuc66C9UdYoiN4=
=8UMn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] keywordIndex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 4. Dezember 2006 14:12:13 +0100 Daniel de la Cuesta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more thing,
How can I set OR association between differents indexes.
For example:
query= { 'Subject' : kw1,
'SearchableText': mytext}
I would like to do an OR between 'Subject' and 'SearchableText'
You might be interested reading my reply from this morning *hint*
- -aj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFFdB9iCJIWIbr9KYwRAlerAJ9HxrpEoQ4rRhvNNpKrHpViVcfKmwCdEu8i
SjPYrN3S10mBFsI8qC3kAKU=
=j5/D
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] default values
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 4. Dezember 2006 16:21:05 +0100 cristi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, I have a Zope+Plone web application and one of my forms aks the user for some information. Then this information is saved in the Zope database. Huh? When you work with Plone then you are using Archetypes for content-types?! Archetype fields can have a 'default' parameter. Check the docs! - -aj -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFdEKmCJIWIbr9KYwRAjWKAKCnfOPXdsCx1ur6H2eHphxXX8ekTwCfQUDO eMo8d/pu4XzIvj0z2+7yWaw= =mutU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] default values
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On 4. Dezember 2006 16:53:35 +0100 cristi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, I have a Zope+Plone web application and one of my forms aks the user for some information. Then this information is saved in the Zope database. Huh? When you work with Plone then you are using Archetypes for content-types?! Archetype fields can have a 'default' parameter. Check the docs! thank you, but unfortunately this is not ok for me. the documentation says the filed receives the value during the object initialization. So when the object will be shown in the HTML form it will contain the default value, but the user can invalidate it. However, I want to allow the user to save such an object but if the field is empty/null/invalid then i want to provide a default value. I hope I was clear enough. Otherwise please ask. Write your own mutator methods that implement the desired behavior instead of using th autogenerated mutator methods. - -aj -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFdE7zCJIWIbr9KYwRAm0MAKDhaN5bJ9Nj59/GmkHBKJ79xi5jhgCfXPd7 ILCghlRA+pWVPIDBqMT2QWk= =vKMk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] keywordIndex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 1. Dezember 2006 13:59:00 +0100 Daniel de la Cuesta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I want to ask you about indexes and searches:
I am using CPS over CMF and I am working with a KeywordIndex that
index a vocabulary.
The user can introduce a list of items to the KeywordIndex. For
example:
Subject is a keywordIndex and I can do 'Subject' = ['sports,
'arts', ...].
It seems that the keywordIndex default beheaviour is to do and OR of the
items.
Subject = {'query' : (kw1,kw2), 'operator' : 'and'}
- -aj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFFcCiSCJIWIbr9KYwRAgcVAJ9xNzE16kgBA9OxocZeZSIFs8L0WgCfTR0o
x138NJewhHqe8IECreg5I5c=
=+AEx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [CMF2.0] Pluggable TypeInformation objects
Hi, I am giving an internal talk about the state of Zope friends..The CMF 2.0 release notes mention Pluggable TypeInformation objects as new feature. Can someone give a short explanation what this means? Thanks, Andreas pgplE5cRSHazY.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: How do deal with cmfcatalog-wrapped objects?
--On 9. April 2006 13:15:15 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are of course free to introduce adapters of your own, but I think the second solution suggested is not too heavy and easily implemented. After all, other code will also depend on the wrapper being as transparent as possible. This solution requires changing CMF which is not acceptable for existing CMF installation and older CMF versions. Monkeypatching also is not really an option. My solution is highly portable across all CMF versions and not very much invasive. -aj pgp8ro5h2PicQ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Priority CMF skins vs. Five views?
--On 8. April 2006 11:17:39 +0200 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skin method lookup uses __getattr__, so the more general question would be attribute lookup. The lookup order was changed recently (Zope 2.9.2) as described here: http://codespeak.net/pipermail/z3-five/2006q1/001186.html Well, I am using Plone 2.1.2, CMF-1.5.6, Zope 2.8.6 + Five 1.2.3. I am 99.% sure that I had been able in the past to overwrite skins views with a related Five view. Now this does not seem to work anymore. The only change I can remember was upgrading to Five 1.2.3 from 1.2.1 I think. Andreas pgpu2c69dWnND.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Priority CMF skins vs. Five views?
--On 8. April 2006 12:38:09 +0200 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lookup order fix is also in Five 1.2.2 and higher, so upgrading from Five 1.2.1 explains the changed behavior. Waahh...it was _extremely_ convenient to override skin methods this way. Is there any way to achieve that now with Five 1.2.3? -aj pgpjtiMoMewQz.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Apache VS. Zope logs
--On 7. Februar 2006 11:34:30 + Rui Gamito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Can anyone tell me why are there such differences on the reports generated by webalizer when running against the apache logs or the Z2.log from zope? I understand that this Z2.log is already in a format readable for. The format of the Z2.log and the apache log are almost identical. But when using Apache then you Z2.log will show 127.0.0.1 or the address of your apache as IP address. In addition you won't see requests where Apache serves content from its cache. Also the URL will differ when using virtual hosting. -aj pgpBxWVKWdHhv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain, What is uncertain (except the issues with the Windows release)? -aj pgpe7aRijRBT4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:30:37 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:20:41 -0800, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain, What is uncertain (except the issues with the Windows release)? The Windows release is a big part of what makes Plone interesting to new adopters, so that is the primary one. ok In addition, I have yet to use a Zope release which didn't have serious problems in its .0 release. I'm not saying this *has* to be the case with the 2.9 release - just being realistic. ;) I agree :-) But I would like to see reasonable feedback from the Plone community about any problems with 2.9.0 to have them fixed for you in 2.9.1. -aj pgptKVZ0C.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Re: Re: Re: VIRTUAL_URL and ACTUAL_URL (was Re: Collector Issues)
--On 6. Dezember 2005 22:41:40 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look, I'm just trying to make Zope a bit more friendly to new developers. Of course, this seems to not be a priority. I'll stop bitching, but the next time people complain about Plone putting things in the wrong layer of the stack, I'll point them to this. If being able to use an anchor tag from ZPT without implementing your own variable isn't base-level functionality, I don't know what is. You could have come with this complaint earlier at the time when ppl were working on this problem. This fix is now one yr old and you could have tested this stuff earlier instead of bringing this up now. Sorry having to say that but some ppl invested time trying to resolve this issue but you haven't tested it in time. I can not see a followup on both issue where anyone is complaining..sorry, it is also up to you to verify things we've implemented for you. -aj pgpXBD5Cu5HQD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] VIRTUAL_URL and ACTUAL_URL (was Re: Collector Issues)
--On 3. Dezember 2005 12:54:37 -0500 George Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right -- but the part that confuses me, is where do variables like came_from, ACTUAL_URL, and VIRTUAL_URL get set? Which ones get used, what items (Virtual Host Monster, Cookie Crumbler, etc.) fire in what order? What's the difference between ACTUAL_URL and VIRTUAL_URL, and are they both still used (somebody said VIRTUAL_URL isn't used)? AFAIK ACTUAL_URL contains the full URL *plus* the query string. VIRTUAL_URL does not contain the query string. ACTUAL_URL was introduced on request by the Plone developers. -aj pgprHuGliM3gB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF 1.5 manage_afterAdd co
--On 9. November 2005 20:41:24 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-11-9 16:17 +0100: ... To make sure that CMF 1.5.5 will play well with Five 1.2, I have to make sure that no method manage_afterAdd redoes a recursion that one of its base classes was doing, as we have to be prepared to have the base class monkey-patched to use events, and have recursion done with events. ... Does someone have a problem with me doing that in the CMF 1.5 branch? Test with with Archetypes and Plone... Archetypes does a nice dance with manage_afterAdd. If fact, it gets it wrong (such that objects are indexed much more than once). Up to eight times per transaction -aj pgpk5xspm9d1a.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] RFC: first stab at viewification
--On 21. Oktober 2005 19:27:38 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Performance on the view version is nearly twice the classic version (14.2 ms vs 24.2 ms on my box). Any idea why the view version is such slow? I thought the execution of trusted code should be faster :-) -aj pgpKp2i7AFXgp.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Problem
--On 17. Juni 2005 10:26:31 +0200 Maya Angelova [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I have a the following problem by restarting a plone site under zope. Could anybody give me a hint. would be very grateful sh plone2 restart plone2: line 156: plone2 : command not found plone2: line 158: plone2 : command not found This is likely a problem for the Plone-users list. -aj pgpFkjc9lV4TW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] listFilteredActionsFor performance
--On Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2005 20:58 Uhr +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, the queries used for worklists are quite trivial. In principle, they should be fast (at least if they would not include the horribly inefficient effective/expires subquery automatically added by the CatalogTool). Maybe, you try to remove this subquery. or by trying to replace date related FieldIndexes with Date(Range)Indexes. -aj pgpOZ2Dh9IjRQ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [Performance] listFilteredActionsFor unnecessarily expensive
--On Dienstag, 5. April 2005 22:29 Uhr +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In our case, listFilteredActionsFor spends about 70 percent of its complete time in the checking of action in catlist. I did some profiling last week because Limi complained also about the slowness of the same method. My profiling (with a fresh Plone installation) told me that about 70% of the time is spend within the loop where all action providers are asked to return a list of matching actions. However Plone implements its own listFilteredActionsFor() method which might be different from the original CMF code. -aj pgp9joQ6v50fS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [Performance] listFilteredActionsFor unnecessarily expensive
--On Dienstag, 5. April 2005 21:44 Uhr -0800 Alec Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sure it all depends on the specific use case. Whatever the case, this check is almost certainly unnecessary, whereas the condition checks are unavoidable and difficult to optimize. If the check should be necessary then it could be replaced with a check using a mapping having a constant access time instead of a running time proportional to the number of actions :-) -aj pgpnCOL01dMo6.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
