Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] tools as utilities
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/06/2012 01:37 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: And if we don't want to support more than one site the ZODB, there should be a warning of you try to do it, btw. I've got no problem with more than one CMF site in a single Zope instance; I just don't want to promote .zexp as the way to migrate such sites (that is what GS is for, after all). I'm confused now. GenericSetup has never been able to reliably export the content of a Plone site, to my knowledge. I'm sure we could make that happen, of course, but is that really less work than I have no idea what you man. GS has been the *only* means I have used for migrating CMF / Plone based sites for going on years now: I haven't used a .zexp export to do so in more than a decade (since well before GS was even released). (I am talking about sites with literally millions of content objects, BTW). Impressive, I usually have gotten errors during the export, because it tries to export content objects when I don't want to, I just want to back up the configuration. Of course, there is the problem that some configuration uses content objects, so if you try to export just configuration and not content you have problems anyway, but I don't know what we can do about that... (I have to say though that I think the claim that this is what GS is for probably is news to many. It was always pushed as a way to do *setup* not exporting content. Ah well). //Lennart ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] tools as utilities
Hi Laurence! Laurence Rowe wrote: On 5 September 2012 19:21, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: Instead of removing the RequestContainer, it could be replaced with a zope.globalrequest aware RequestContainer. That might be cleaner than rewrapping in individual utilities, and would work with Zope 2.13. I gave this a go in http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/changeset/127722/five.localsitemanager/branches/global-request-container It seems to work fine with the CMF trunk tests even when I remove all RequestContainer wrapping from both CMFCore and CMFDefault (the CMFDefault tests then fail with five.localsitemanage trunk.) http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/changeset/127724/Products.CMFCore/branches/global-request-container http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/changeset/127726/Products.CMFDefault/branches/global-request-container Nice! Unfortunately there's a trade-off: Modernizing the RequestContainer concept makes it possible to move forward in some areas without breaking existing code. That's a good thing. But on the other hand it makes it easy to write bad code. New code should not rely on this. People should write views if their code depends on the request, not utilities. I think this discussion is closely related to your plans for Zope 4: If Zope 4 will (re-)enable the get-request-by-acquisition pattern everywhere, it doesn't make much sense to be more restrictive in CMF 2.3 on Zope 2.13. Please consider providing tools for people who want to write clean code. Documentation, warnings, maybe even a switch for disabling the legacy behavior. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] tools as utilities
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/06/2012 01:37 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: And if we don't want to support more than one site the ZODB, there should be a warning of you try to do it, btw. I've got no problem with more than one CMF site in a single Zope instance; I just don't want to promote .zexp as the way to migrate such sites (that is what GS is for, after all). I'm confused now. GenericSetup has never been able to reliably export the content of a Plone site, to my knowledge. I'm sure we could make that happen, of course, but is that really less work than I have no idea what you man. GS has been the *only* means I have used for migrating CMF / Plone based sites for going on years now: I haven't used a .zexp export to do so in more than a decade (since well before GS was even released). Wait, what? Whenever I look into structure, there is only basic information, not even the workflow states of the objects get exported. What am I doing wrong? ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Security declarations on adapters
Hi Charlie! Charlie Clark wrote: Am 05.09.2012, 09:07 Uhr, schrieb yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de: The setup of your doctest looks fine, you just have to enable syndication for the folder (app.site) to get the view. Tests landed yesterday and I also ran them with the oldstyle implementation. Good. What is, in your view, missing from a final release? Laurence proposed some changes for the utilities: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2012-September/030381.html If we agree that's the way to go, I'd like to have his changes in CMF 2.3 before the final release. All the other unfinished tasks can be deferred to CMF 2.4. The last beta was at the end of March so maybe it's time for another one to include all the formlib stuff you've worked on? I use CMF trunk in production, so I don't need a beta release. But it might be a good idea if other people want a beta for testing. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Security declarations on adapters
Am 06.09.2012, 13:11 Uhr, schrieb yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de: Good. What is, in your view, missing from a final release? Laurence proposed some changes for the utilities: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2012-September/030381.html If we agree that's the way to go, I'd like to have his changes in CMF 2.3 before the final release. Unless something downstream is dependent on these kind of changes I don't see any reason to including them at this late stage. All the other unfinished tasks can be deferred to CMF 2.4. Do we have a list of these unfinished tasks? Off the top of my head: correcting the docs. I'd also like to see at least minimal support for a WYSIWYG editor for HTML-text fields. Not sure if this should be part of CMF or a standalone formlib addition because of the external dependencies. The last beta was at the end of March so maybe it's time for another one to include all the formlib stuff you've worked on? I use CMF trunk in production, so I don't need a beta release. But it might be a good idea if other people want a beta for testing. I definitely think another beta would make sense: my own sites don't use trunk simply what PyPI spits out. How can we get the sphinxified docs into the release process? Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting Research German Office Kronenstr. 27a Düsseldorf D- 40217 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Security declarations on adapters
On 6 September 2012 14:06, Charlie Clark charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu wrote: Am 06.09.2012, 13:11 Uhr, schrieb yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de: Good. What is, in your view, missing from a final release? Laurence proposed some changes for the utilities: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2012-September/030381.html If we agree that's the way to go, I'd like to have his changes in CMF 2.3 before the final release. Unless something downstream is dependent on these kind of changes I don't see any reason to including them at this late stage. I think the downsides from leaving it out are: * Another branch of five.localsitemanager to maintain. * Incompatibility between CMF 2.3 and Zope 4 once the parent pointer changes go in. Plone is unlikely to make a CMF upgrade until it removes its CMFDefault dependency. Laurence The main downside to leaving the changes out is the necessity of another five.localsitemanager branch to maintain. The changes are compatible with CMF 2.2, but it may not play nicely with the ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Security declarations on adapters
Hiya Laurence, Am 06.09.2012, 14:46 Uhr, schrieb Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk: I think the downsides from leaving it out are: * Another branch of five.localsitemanager to maintain. * Incompatibility between CMF 2.3 and Zope 4 once the parent pointer changes go in. What's the timescale for that? I don't see a problem with 2.3 being tied to 2.13 and 2.4 being for 2.13 which I assume Zope 4 is? 2.3 has a slew of changes throughout. Plone is unlikely to make a CMF upgrade until it removes its CMFDefault dependency. Please elaborate. Laurence The main downside to leaving the changes out is the necessity of another five.localsitemanager branch to maintain. The changes are compatible with CMF 2.2, but it may not play nicely with the Did you hit enter too early? Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting Research German Office Kronenstr. 27a Düsseldorf D- 40217 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Security declarations on adapters
Am 06.09.2012, 16:24 Uhr, schrieb yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de: These changes provide better backward compatibility for code using CMF tools/utilities and better forward compatibility for running CMF on Zope 4. (*If* the proposed changes become part of Zope 4.) As you say, if. We don't have to wait for the Zope 4 release, just for the decision about the changes and for a five.localsitemanager release. Some small changes I made for CMF 2.3 don't play nice with the changes Laurence is working on. Point taken. All the other unfinished tasks can be deferred to CMF 2.4. Do we have a list of these unfinished tasks? There are the (incomplete) todo lists for browser views. I'd also like to revisit the names we did choose for the views and make them the default target of Actions. hm, I drew up the lists from the existing Scripts/Templates and thought it was complete. I've just checked again and can only find the following as not done: - [?] viewThreadsAtBottom.pt (structure) - [?] talkback_tree.pt (macros) - [?] setup_talkback_tree.py - [?] discitem_delete.py I thought we'd agreed not to make them the default for this release but remove the experimental label from the profile. Personally, I would like to see them as the default, not least because they nearly all have coverage. But, we shouldn't be packing too much into a single release. Maybe because you work with trunk you notice less? As soon as we have a complete replacement for the oldstyle skins I'd like to move those skins into a separate legacy package. +1 (I recently removed the complete skins tool from some of my CMF instances. That depends on a few hacks, but works quite well.) Sounds great but should be in a separate release. We also should consider moving the skins tool and the directory view code into a separate package. This could be in 2.4 That code has some dependencies that were removed from Zope 2 (Zope 4) and are not required for sites without skins tool. In the long run I have no ambitions to maintain that code and its dependencies. I don't think anyone does. Off the top of my head: correcting the docs. There are also duplicate DCWorkflow docs. Someone has to figure out if the old .stx docs are redundant and obsolete. There are equivalents for all .stx as .rst. I thought I had moved the files over but apparently not. I don't know what to do about the examples. But the .stx files can go. I think all the docs need a review but would like them to be visible first. I'd also like to see at least minimal support for a WYSIWYG editor for HTML-text fields. Not sure if this should be part of CMF or a standalone formlib addition because of the external dependencies. Some day I want to switch to z3c.form which has more add ons. I wouldn't spend too much time on formlib specific features. Again that would be for a later release. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting Research German Office Kronenstr. 27a Düsseldorf D- 40217 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Security declarations on adapters
I always like the solipsism of replying to myself! ;-) Am 06.09.2012, 16:58 Uhr, schrieb Charlie Clark charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu: hm, I drew up the lists from the existing Scripts/Templates and thought it was complete. I've just checked again and can only find the following as not done: - [?] viewThreadsAtBottom.pt (structure) - [?] talkback_tree.pt (macros) - [?] setup_talkback_tree.py - [?] discitem_delete.py Just checked on these and it looks like there are no views for discussions. So I've added a stub for them and, at least temporarily, moved these putative todos to discussion. A bit difficult to write tests for them as I'm currently getting the following error when using the classic versions: Error Type: AttributeError Error Value: SectionValue instance has no attribute 'structured_text_header_level' We can, and should, revisit naming again. IIRC you weren't happy with my choices of skins and widgets. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting Research German Office Kronenstr. 27a Düsseldorf D- 40217 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] cmf-tests - OK: 4
This is the summary for test reports received on the cmf-tests list between 2012-09-05 00:00:00 UTC and 2012-09-06 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received CMF-2.2 Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.8 : Linux CMF-2.2 Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.8 : Linux CMF-trunk Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.8 : Linux CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.6.8 : Linux Non-OK results -- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
