Re: [Zope-dev] New version of BTreeFolder
Kapil Thangavelu wrote: Shane Hathaway wrote: BTW has anyone done any semi-formal speed tests? It's rumored that a custom getattr in Python can cause a bit of a slowdown. We could write a custom getattr in C to solve the problem. But we don't want to do any premature optimization. Shane I'll work on some tests. Kapil semi-formal test i ran some basic tests comparing a btree folder against a folder. i'm not sure about my testing methodology but here are the results. the test code is at the end of this email. the first pair of numbers is a timed creation test for size xxx of DTML Documents. the second pair of numbers is a timed test for len(objectIds()) the third pair of numbers is a timed test for attribute access with a call to int(dtmldoc.title_or_id()) # all the ids are stringed numbers my test box is running mandrake 7.1 with 512 M ram, dual proc celerons 550s (oc'd) some quick conclusions. the btree folder is slower on average for creation by anywhere from 15-25% andt btree's __getattr is on average almost twice as slow as the folder's getattr. order folder followed by btreefolder for size 100 0.0974419116974 :::0.126843929291 0.000378012657166 :::0.000354051589966 0.0101770162582 :::0.0186030864716 for size 100 0.0978569984436 :::0.125252962112 0.000376105308533 :::0.000353932380676 0.0101470947266 :::0.0185579061508 for size 500 0.52112698555 :::0.657492995262 0.00154399871826 :::0.00154197216034 0.0524510145187 :::0.0956329107285 for size 500 0.53660595417 :::0.714686989784 0.00154197216034 :::0.00157594680786 0.0532569885254 :::0.100463986397 for size 1000 1.11411702633 :::1.4010369 0.00302505493164 :::0.00306105613708 0.105547070503 :::0.193196058273 for size 1000 1.12388503551 :::1.58762395382 0.00370097160339 :::0.00381696224213 0.106634020805 :::0.194367051125 for size 2000 2.60056698322 :::3.20675897598 0.007483959198 :::0.00741696357727 0.216197967529 :::0.396993994713 for size 2000 2.64964604378 :::3.26421093941 0.0074850320816 :::0.00761103630066 0.214147925377 :::0.40997505188 for size 5000 9.50434195995 :::11.0002789497 0.0184400081635 :::0.018413901329 0.533676981926 :::0.997251987457 just to be fair i reversed the positions and did a second set of runs with only 1 run per size as the results were consistent with the first set. for size 100 0.128319978714 :::0.10124707222 0.000413060188293 :::0.000383019447327 0.018816113472 :::0.0104240179062 for size 100 0.12813603878 :::0.101204037666 0.00040602684021 :::0.000380039215088 0.0188159942627 :::0.0105849504471 for size 500 0.681550979614 :::0.546862006187 0.00152194499969 :::0.00160706043243 0.0983099937439 :::0.0540620088577 for size 1000 1.47808301449 :::1.17385303974 0.00308799743652 :::0.00319290161133 0.197283029556 :::0.108732938766 for size 5000 11.1204429865 :::9.15097498894 0.015163064003 :::0.0150960683823 1.00954806805 :::0.535046935081 Despite this evidence. at size 5000, looking at the btreefolder contents in the management screen was near instaneous while the folder took almost a minute. based on the above evidence though that has more to do with the interface than the underlying speed of the folder methods. night. Kapil test code to follow. external method import time import os import Products.BTreeFolder def btest(self, REQUEST, =None): ''' ''' if not : =100 results = [] bf = Products.BTreeFolder.BTreeFolder.BTreeFolder() bf.id = 'btree_test_b' self._setObject(bf.id, bf) id = 'btree_test_f' rf = self.manage_addFolder(id) # creation test for completeness stime = time.time() for num in xrange(): self.btree_test_b.manage_addDTMLDocument(str(num)) etime = time.time() result = etime-stime #self.get_transaction().commit() stime = time.time() for num in xrange(): self.btree_test_f.manage_addDTMLDocument(str(num)) etime = time.time() results.append(result, etime-stime) # access test stime = time.time() len(self.btree_test_b.objectIds()) etime = time.time() result = etime-stime stime = time.time() len(self.btree_test_f.objectIds()) etime = time.time() results.append(result, etime-stime) # iteration test stime = time.time() for oid, item in self.btree_test_b.objectItems(): int(item.title_or_id()) etime = time.time() result=etime-stime stime = time.time() for oid, item in self.btree_test_f.objectItems(): int(item.title_or_id()) etime = time.time() results.append(result, etime-stime) return results ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts
[Zope-dev] Help: mod_python+ZPublisher and authentication
Hello, This is not exactly a Zope question, but I hope that some of you will be able to help me: I am using mod_python + ZPublisher + Ztemplate on a apache server and now I would like to restrict the access of some pages served by the ZHandler.py. How to do it?? Do I have to put a rewrite rule in apache? The Zhandler.py seams to reply all the time a 200 code to apache, do I have to modify it to send back an 'Unauthorized' code??( I don't know how to raise the 'Unauthorized' error from the python module I am publishing) Thanks for any help Gilles Lavaux ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: ANNOUNCE: Zope 2.2.1 released - breaks my zclass instances too.
Brian, the tranalyser reported a clean (old) data.fs and I don't use any python base classes for any of my zclasses - however, in the interests of my own sanity, I'm pleased to report success with an old recipe - I started with a fresh Data.fs and cleaned out some cruft from my Products folder. After removing all the stuff I'm not using now (ZopePTK and ZDConfera/ZDiscussions products in particular), I was able to import my zclasses and then the major application folder - everything looks fine now and seems to work. Lesson may be that a Data.fs which works with an earlier zope version may fail when upgrading to 2.2.1 - if so, try No - thats not the lesson (at least not the right one)... It looks like something in the "cruft" didn't want to be unpickled in the new installation (most likely due to a missing piece - a required product or base class needed by a piece of cruft didn't get moved to the new install). A Data.fs from an earlier version should always work with a later version so long as all add-ons are replicated in the new installation. Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Engineer 540.371.6909 Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] New version of BTreeFolder
Kapil Thangavelu wrote: semi-formal test i ran some basic tests comparing a btree folder against a folder. i'm not sure about my testing methodology but here are the results. the test code is at the end of this email. (snip) some quick conclusions. the btree folder is slower on average for creation by anywhere from 15-25% andt btree's __getattr is on average almost twice as slow as the folder's getattr. I must say thank you! Your results look very conclusive. It would appear, then, that storing the objects in a BTree actually slows down reads and writes considerably. And the only thing that needs to be improved about folders is the user interface. The problem with the current Folder UI, you see, is that each object is loaded from the database every time you look at the folder contents view. Additionally, browsers have trouble rendering large tables. BTreeFolder gets the contents listing from the _objects attribute and generates a simple list. It's just lucky that all platforms I know of can handle thousands of items in a simple list without any slowdown. This provided us the data we needed for improving folders. Thanks again! Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] ZPatterns bug: Customizers don't rename well
ZPatterns 0-4-1snap1 Zope 2.2.1 To reproduce the error, do this: Create a Folder with Customizer support Give it a Customizer Rename that Customizer Press the "Customizers" tab in the folder Zope Error Error Type: AttributeError Error Value: __customizerRegistry__ Traceback (innermost last): File /lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py, line 222, in publish_module File /lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py, line 187, in publish File /lib/python/Zope/__init__.py, line 221, in zpublisher_exception_hook File /lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py, line 171, in publish File /lib/python/ZPublisher/mapply.py, line 160, in mapply (Object: manage_main) File /lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py, line 112, in call_object (Object: manage_main) File /lib/python/App/special_dtml.py, line 120, in __call__ (Object: manage_main) (Info: /lib/python/Products/ZPatterns/www/PlugInGroup.dtml) File /lib/python/DocumentTemplate/DT_String.py, line 528, in __call__ (Object: manage_main) File /lib/python/App/special_dtml.py, line 120, in __call__ (Object: manage_below) (Info: /lib/python/Products/ZPatterns/www/showCustomizers.dtml) File /lib/python/DocumentTemplate/DT_String.py, line 528, in __call__ (Object: manage_below) File /lib/python/DocumentTemplate/DT_In.py, line 630, in renderwob (Object: manage_registry) File /lib/python/Products/ZPatterns/Customizers.py, line 63, in manage_registry AttributeError: (see above) The error occurs because the rename method redirects to: http://puffin.cat-box.net:7080/test/Customizers_ Pressing the "customizers" tab yields the url: http://puffin.cat-box.net:7080/test/Customizers_/Customizers_/manage_workspace -- Steve Alexander Software Engineer Cat-Box limited http://www.cat-box.net ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Caching a tree tag
Hello! I've got a site set up using Zope, I'm very pleased with it for the most part, but I have some complicated threaded discussion pages that use the tree tag, and they're taking FOREVER to load. I'm not completely certain which part of the system is taking so long. My first question is, is there an easy way to profile python routines? I don't know of a quick way, I'd love to hear suggestions. The second question I have is about the tree tag. I suspect that my pages are taking so long to render because my branches methods are pretty expensive. One possibility for me is to optimize this code. But I don't think this will really solve the problem. What I'd like to do is cache the tree structure. I don't want to cache the objects, just references to the nodes. Would this take just a little tweaking of the zope internals, or a lot? Again, I'd love any suggestions. Finally, how much overhead do you get from the tree tag, relative to an in tag, if the branches method is cheap? If I can't cache Zope's tree structure, I will probably make my own tree object storing references to the appropriate objects. Would recursing over this object with an in tag give me any performance improvement? Thanks! In community, Jeffrey Harris, Skyhouse Consulting ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] CLIDAzope
how is the status of CLIDAzope ? will we have it this year? regards Kenji ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: ANNOUNCE: Zope 2.2.1 released - breaks my zclass instances too.
I'm a little confused - which is not unusual, so please bear with me. I'm absolutely sure that NONE of the things which were broken in the original Data.fs had the slightest/faintest connection with any of the products I expunged. It was removing the cruft alone which fixed the problem. Doesn't this (and the other episode reported by Andy) raise the issue of what we can do to ensure that a broken product or piece of a product doesn't stop a healthy product and its instances (completely independent in the sense of not using any of the broken product's base classes or classes) from working? The instances which were broken were multi-level zclasses which included ObjectManager and CatalogAware in their base classes. The relevant products were entirely healthy. The things I got rid of included two broken things which I never tried to fix (ZDConfera, ZDiscussions) plus some left over stuff (ZopePTK, PTKBase, PTKDemo, Wizard, Membership, LoginManager and a few other bits and pieces which I didn't need although they didn't appear broken..) - none of which had any connection to the broken zclasses in terms that I can understand - other than sharing/breaking an otherwise healthy ZODB. Brian Lloyd wrote: Lesson may be that a Data.fs which works with an earlier zope version may fail when upgrading to 2.2.1 - if so, try No - thats not the lesson (at least not the right one)... It looks like something in the "cruft" didn't want to be unpickled in the new installation (most likely due to a missing piece - a required product or base class needed by a piece of cruft didn't get moved to the new install). A Data.fs from an earlier version should always work with a later version so long as all add-ons are replicated in the new installation. Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Engineer 540.371.6909 Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com -- Dr Ross Lazarus Associate Professor and Sub-Dean for Information Technology Faculty of Medicine, Room 114, A27, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia Tel: (+61 2) 93514429 Mobile: +61414872482 Fax: (+61 2) 93516646 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Redirection and Authentication
Hi!
I had a little problem and just wanted to ask if someone knows an explanation..
The goal:
I want to show a list of newsitems to the user. If an administrator wants
to change it he should be able to log in and see the same list but with edit-
buttons.
The setup is:
/folder/list- public accessible dtml method which show the list
/folder/edit- protected dtml method
The edit method is protected so that the login requester pops up and asks
for a passwort.
Originally I was simply redirecting back to the list page inside the edit document by
dtml-call "RESPONSE.redirect('./list')"
(the only line in the document)
In list I then check for a login with
dtml-if "REQUEST['AUTHENTICATED_USER'].has_permission('whatever',this())"
.. show edit button here ...
/dtml-if
The problem is now that after the Redirect AUTHENTICATED_USER is again set to
Anonymous (which I tested by printing AUTHENTICATED_USER). If I do no redirect
but put a normal link back to the list document, everything works as expected
(thus showing the edit button).
So has anyone an explanation? (Version is 2.2.0)
(right now I directly include the list again in the edit document by
using dtml-var. Works for this little thing but I assume this only being
a workaround..)
(I also remember having some strange problems with a redirect from python some
time ago. Back then it did not commit the database transaction in Oracle. After
putting a get_transaction().commit() before the redirect made things work again.)
cheers,
Christian
--
Christian Scholz MrTopf@IRC
COM.lounge http://comlounge.net/
communication design [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Enhanced permissions for DTMLMethod and DTMLDocument?
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Christopher J. Kucera wrote: I've got a question about permissions of DTMLMethods and DTMLDocuments. It seems to me that if you've given a role the "View management screens" permission, any user with that role should be able to view the source code for Methods and Documents. Is there any concurrence here? No. grin I can understand if you don't want that kind of feature bundled in with "View management screens," but if that's the case then I think there should be a different role that grants these permissions. My understanding (which may be wrong!) is that 'View management screens' gives one permission (by convention?) to use 'manage_' methods. *Which* manage methods you can use (or even see on the management tabs) is controlled by other permissions. So if such an auxiliarry permission for viewing the contents doesn't exist, it probably would be useful to create it. But I don't think view management screens should automatically give you access to the source code. --RDM ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] dtml-tree question
- Original Message - From: "Dieter Maurer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Hugo Ramos" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "ZOPE" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "EUROZOPE" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [Zope] dtml-tree question Hugo Ramos writes: Is there a way to use my own self made '+' icon in a tree tag? I'dd like to use my own icon only IF i want to... and not change the python source to use my own icon all the time! The code is partially there, but incomplete and commented out. If you do not mind other extensions as well, I could provide a TreeTag patch for several extensions, including the icon customization. hello Dieter, I've tryied to hack the treetag source already... but there's some kind of bug in it: line 566 (original source): s.append([id,[]]) Why is this trying to append to 's' when 's' has become a tupple somewhere before this line???... tupples don't accept append!! This bug is really making me crazy... because it makes an error when clicking the + icon in a dtml-tree that I must use... Another thing: I hacked the source of treetag.py to accept 2 more parameters in the dtml-tree... icon_mi and icon_pl The hacked source is in the attach. Changes go from line 411-427. Of course i defined the 2 new parameters as None in the file top. Please somebody help me... I'm running out of ideias... regards = Hugo Ramos - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZopersORG - http://www.zopers.org = Do not meddle in the affairs of programmers, for they are easy to annoy, and have all the source code!!! ## # # Zope Public License (ZPL) Version 1.0 # - # # Copyright (c) Digital Creations. All rights reserved. # # This license has been certified as Open Source(tm). # # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without # modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are # met: # # 1. Redistributions in source code must retain the above copyright #notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. # # 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright #notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in #the documentation and/or other materials provided with the #distribution. # # 3. Digital Creations requests that attribution be given to Zope #in any manner possible. Zope includes a "Powered by Zope" #button that is installed by default. While it is not a license #violation to remove this button, it is requested that the #attribution remain. A significant investment has been put #into Zope, and this effort will continue if the Zope community #continues to grow. This is one way to assure that growth. # # 4. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning #features derived from or use of this software must display #the following acknowledgement: # # "This product includes software developed by Digital Creations # for use in the Z Object Publishing Environment # (http://www.zope.org/)." # #In the event that the product being advertised includes an #intact Zope distribution (with copyright and license included) #then this clause is waived. # # 5. Names associated with Zope or Digital Creations must not be used to #endorse or promote products derived from this software without #prior written permission from Digital Creations. # # 6. Modified redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain #the following acknowledgment: # # "This product includes software developed by Digital Creations # for use in the Z Object Publishing Environment # (http://www.zope.org/)." # #Intact (re-)distributions of any official Zope release do not #require an external acknowledgement. # # 7. Modifications are encouraged but must be packaged separately as #patches to official Zope releases. Distributions that do not #clearly separate the patches from the original work must be clearly #labeled as unofficial distributions. Modifications which do not #carry the name Zope may be packaged in any form, as long as they #conform to all of the clauses above. # # # Disclaimer # # THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY DIGITAL CREATIONS ``AS IS'' AND ANY # EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE # IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR # PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DIGITAL CREATIONS OR ITS # CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, # SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT # LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF # USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND # ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, # OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT #
