[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8: ZODB fix breaks undoable_transactions
Hi! Tim Peters wrote: [yuppie] http://svn.zope.org/?view=revrev=30334 changed the behavior of undoInfo() in a way that is not backwards compatible. That's true, or at least off-by-one different than recent ZODB 3.2s. Rev 30334 fixed two bugs in the implementation, so that the behavior matched what the documentation has always said undoInfo() did. I don't know when the implementation got out of synch with the docs, AFAICS there were no related changes in App.Undo.UndoSupport or undo.dtml within the last 5 years, so I guess the 'broken' behavior existed for quite a while and all existing code that uses undoInfo() or undoable_transactions() depends on the old behavior. but however people want to resolve this I will not leave the implementation disagreeing with the docs. Don't know what other people think. I believe restoring the old undoInfo behavior and adjusting the documentation would be the best solution. Fixing this in undoable_transactions would fork the behavior of both methods and fixing all products that depend on the old behavior would cause unnecessary trouble. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8: ZODB fix breaks undoable_transactions
[yuppie]
...
Don't know what other people think. I believe restoring the old undoInfo
behavior and adjusting the documentation would be the best solution.
Fixing this in undoable_transactions would fork the behavior of both
methods and fixing all products that depend on the old behavior would
cause unnecessary trouble.
Can you document the behavior you want? Because there were multiple
bugs in the implementation before, I'm not exactly sure what old
behavior was in all cases; I'm certain that _some_ of it was purely
accidental, never intended, and utterly surprising (when last 0).
ZODB/interfaces.py's IStorageUndoable.undoLog documents the current
behavior, which matches what ZODB's UML docs have always claimed
behavior should be. This behavior is tested in ZODB too now, so any
change here requires fiddling code, docs and tests. If Zope requires
particular behaviors, it should grow tests for those too.
I'd be happy enough changing `first` and `last` to act like Python
slice indices instead, with the caveat that because there's other
weird non-Python behavior mandated when last 0 (then undo{Log,Info}
are documented as taking the absolute value of `last` as being an
upper bound on the # of results to return -- and old behavior was
related to that, albeit with bugs of its own), they cannot act like
Python slice indices unless `first` and `last` are both non-negative.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8: ZODB fix breaks undoable_transactions
Tim Peters wrote:
[yuppie]
...
Don't know what other people think. I believe restoring the old undoInfo
behavior and adjusting the documentation would be the best solution.
Fixing this in undoable_transactions would fork the behavior of both
methods and fixing all products that depend on the old behavior would
cause unnecessary trouble.
Can you document the behavior you want? Because there were multiple
bugs in the implementation before, I'm not exactly sure what old
behavior was in all cases; I'm certain that _some_ of it was purely
accidental, never intended, and utterly surprising (when last 0).
ZODB/interfaces.py's IStorageUndoable.undoLog documents the current
behavior, which matches what ZODB's UML docs have always claimed
behavior should be. This behavior is tested in ZODB too now, so any
change here requires fiddling code, docs and tests. If Zope requires
particular behaviors, it should grow tests for those too.
I'd be happy enough changing `first` and `last` to act like Python
slice indices instead, with the caveat that because there's other
weird non-Python behavior mandated when last 0 (then undo{Log,Info}
are documented as taking the absolute value of `last` as being an
upper bound on the # of results to return -- and old behavior was
related to that, albeit with bugs of its own), they cannot act like
Python slice indices unless `first` and `last` are both non-negative.
Zope 2 uses 'undoInfo' only in one place: 'undoable_transactions'. And
'undoable_transactions' is only used for the undo tab.
CMF uses 'undoable_transactions' in a similar way than Zope 2. The
problem with the CMF code is that it should work in a consistent way
with Zope 2.7 and 2.8.
These are the two use cases I'm aware of. Both only use last 0 and
both expect slicing behavior for positive values, e.g. these conditions
should be True if we don't change undoable_transactions::
db.undoInfo(0, 20) == db.undoInfo(0, 99)[0:20]
db.undoInfo(20, 40) == db.undoInfo(0, 99)[20:40]
I don't care very much *how* this is resolved. All I want is to get the
regressions in Zope 2 and CMF fixed.
Cheers, Yuppie
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8: ZODB fix breaks undoable_transactions
[yuppie] ... These are the two use cases I'm aware of. Both only use last 0 and both expect slicing behavior for positive values, e.g. these conditions should be True if we don't change undoable_transactions:: db.undoInfo(0, 20) == db.undoInfo(0, 99)[0:20] db.undoInfo(20, 40) == db.undoInfo(0, 99)[20:40] I'm willing to change undoInfo to do that; the old UML docs will just be wrong then. I don't care very much *how* this is resolved. All I want is to get the regressions in Zope 2 and CMF fixed. If it continues to be the case that Zope contains no tests verifying the behavior(s) it relies on, I'll have no way to know whether that stuff is fixed or not. ZODB will pass its own tests, but that's not enough (the ZODB tests have been passing all along). ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8 on hold
Hi, Am Samstag, den 07.05.2005, 12:56 -0400 schrieb Tim Peters: Both appear to be due to that Zope 2.7.6 on Windows shipped with a wrong (too old) version of pywin32, and continued to repackage pywin32 in the old (certifiably insane 0.7 wink) flat way. Mark Hammond submitted patches to install a correct version of pywin32, and in a correct way. Those patches were incorporated into WinBuilders, so it's hard to understand how Zope 2.7.6 on Windows got built the way it did. Can only guess the installer was built using an out-of-date WinBuilders checkout, with an out-of-date pywin32, applied to an up-to-date Zope checkout. Yup. That's more than likely. I checked in *my* outdated version of the WinBuilders that did build in the Zope 2.7 and 2.8 branch 10 minutes ago. After that I read this thread catching up my email and noticed that they are outdated. :/ Anyway. Having them under the Zope trees should be better now, we just need to get to a working state again. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, Christian -- gocept gmbh co. kg - schalaunische str. 6 - 06366 koethen - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 3496 30 99 112 - fax +49 3496 30 99 118 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8 on hold
[Andreas Jung] At least the following are important (besides the problem with the Winbuilder) [Tim Peters] What WinBuilders problem? I keep hearing there's a problem there, but don't know what it is -- and I had no problem using WinBuilders for Zope 2.8. [Andreas] I know only that Christian had problems (according to his posting some days ago). I can not comment and can not value these issues. But there seems to be something. For me, WinBuilders *seemed* to work fine - until I realized that it was reusing files from my previous 2.7 build. After nuking my 'build' directory, I get this error: touch /cygdrive/e/src/zope-packages/build/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py touch: creating `/cygdrive/e/src/zope-packages/build/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py': No such file or directory make: *** [/cygdrive/e/src/zope-packages/build/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py] Error 1 It appears the path should now be lib/python/Zope2/Startup/run.py. There was some talk about moving WinBuilders to under the main Zope tree - that would solve a few problems related to the build - including the wrong pywin32 version one (as it would have been much more difficult to not update WinBuilders!) Regarding the other bugs: Yuppie proposed 1776, but I'm afraid I don't understand the context of that report, so I'm unable to help. As Tim said, 1763 and 1711 don't apply. That leaves only 1728 and 1507, which appear the same issue - Yuppie just recently posted more information about that. Just before his mail I updated 1728 to indicate something similar, and that it is apparently not a windows bug. So I can't see anything else I can help with for 2.8. Also, while I am here :) I mailed my CVS contributor form a couple of weeks ago. What is the next step in the process? Cheers, Mark ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8 on hold
[Mark Hammond] For me, WinBuilders *seemed* to work fine - until I realized that it was reusing files from my previous 2.7 build. After nuking my 'build' directory, I get this error: touch /cygdrive/e/src/zope-packages/build/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py touch: creating `/cygdrive/e/src/zope-packages/build/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py': No such file or directory make: *** [/cygdrive/e/src/zope-packages/build/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py] Error 1 It appears the path should now be lib/python/Zope2/Startup/run.py. Yes, that was discussed here before. There are 3 instances of $(BUILD_DIR)/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py in the current WinBuilders HEAD zope.mk, and they all need s/Zope/Zope2/ to use WinBuilders for Zope trunk. Various version numbers are out of date too. For example, current HEAD zope.mk still says: ZOPEVERSION=2.7.5-final despite that 2.7.6 was released (and the released 2.7.6 final is broken on Windows: the shipped 2.7.6 contains your Windows service improvements, but still ships the old version of pywin32, and still in the broken flat way). Given those minor changes, WinBuilders worked fine for me applied to Zope trunk. There was some talk about moving WinBuilders to under the main Zope tree - that would solve a few problems related to the build - including the wrong pywin32 version one (as it would have been much more difficult to not update WinBuilders!) As above, that part got blown in Zope 2.7.6 anyway. I'll suggest that what the Windows Zope release process needs is someone to drive it who actually uses Zope on Windows 0.1 wink. Play, pay, or forget it. ... Also, while I am here :) I mailed my CVS contributor form a couple of weeks ago. What is the next step in the process? To whom did you mail it? I believe Jim (Fulton) handles those, so I'm copying him. Jim, did we get Mark's form? ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8 on hold
Andreas Jung wrote: in agreement with Jim Fulton and Brian Lloyd we decided to put the Zope 2.8 release on hold for now. There are several open issues related to running Zope on Windows (building, startup problems). Since we need to have a stable source code release and a stable windows release in sync, the next beta 2 will appear as soon as the major issues are fixed. This is maybe a good point for advanced Windows programmer to help out *wink* +1 Are there collector issues for the release blockers? A list of release blockers might help to find volunteers. I'd like to nominate http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1776 Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8 on hold
--On Samstag, 7. Mai 2005 10:15 Uhr +0200 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: in agreement with Jim Fulton and Brian Lloyd we decided to put the Zope 2.8 release on hold for now. There are several open issues related to running Zope on Windows (building, startup problems). Since we need to have a stable source code release and a stable windows release in sync, the next beta 2 will appear as soon as the major issues are fixed. This is maybe a good point for advanced Windows programmer to help out *wink* +1 Are there collector issues for the release blockers? A list of release blockers might help to find volunteers. I'd like to nominate http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1776 At least the following are important (besides the problem with the Winbuilder) http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1763 http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1728 http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1711 Fix what you can :-) I am mostly ignorant on Windows issues and don't have an environment for doing any tests are whatever...so it is basically up to the people with windows expertise to work on these issues...I am just trying to crack the whip :-) Andreas pgpACC19kKiMG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8 on hold
--On Samstag, 7. Mai 2005 12:56 Uhr -0400 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Andreas Jung] At least the following are important (besides the problem with the Winbuilder) What WinBuilders problem? I keep hearing there's a problem there, but don't know what it is -- and I had no problem using WinBuilders for Zope 2.8. I know only that Christian had problems (according to his posting some days ago). I can not comment and can not value these issues. But there seems to be something. Note that these two aren't about Zope 2.8, they're about Zope 2.7.6: http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1763 http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1711 Both appear to be due to that Zope 2.7.6 on Windows shipped with a wrong (too old) version of pywin32, and continued to repackage pywin32 in the old (certifiably insane 0.7 wink) flat way. Mark Hammond submitted patches to install a correct version of pywin32, and in a correct way. Those patches were incorporated into WinBuilders, so it's hard to understand how Zope 2.7.6 on Windows got built the way it did. Can only guess the installer was built using an out-of-date WinBuilders checkout, with an out-of-date pywin32, applied to an up-to-date Zope checkout. Christian should know...as I said...I have no idea about how this windows stuff works and what it does...so I depend on the competence of you windows guys :-) -aj pgpauGqIyDdN0.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8 on hold
[Andreas Jung] At least the following are important (besides the problem with the Winbuilder) [Tim Peters] What WinBuilders problem? I keep hearing there's a problem there, but don't know what it is -- and I had no problem using WinBuilders for Zope 2.8. [Andreas] I know only that Christian had problems (according to his posting some days ago). I can not comment and can not value these issues. But there seems to be something. If you're talking about his posts to this list, those were all addressed some time ago, and all the problems in Zope 2.8's setup.py he was hitting have been repaired. If Christian still has problems, I haven't seen anything about them (neither on this list nor anywhere else). Note that these two aren't about Zope 2.8, they're about Zope 2.7.6: http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1763 http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1711 Both appear to be due to that Zope 2.7.6 on Windows shipped with a wrong (too old) version of pywin32, and continued to repackage pywin32 in the old (certifiably insane 0.7 wink) flat way. Mark Hammond submitted patches to install a correct version of pywin32, and in a correct way. Those patches were incorporated into WinBuilders, so it's hard to understand how Zope 2.7.6 on Windows got built the way it did. Can only guess the installer was built using an out-of-date WinBuilders checkout, with an out-of-date pywin32, applied to an up-to-date Zope checkout. Christian should know...as I said...I have no idea about how this windows stuff works and what it does...so I depend on the competence of you windows guys :-) It would help if Christian said something wink. I'm not sure the point of the above got across: the subject of this thread is Zope 2.8 on hold, but the two issues identified above are not Zope 2.8 issues. They're Zope 2.7.6 issues. Zope 2.8 shouldn't have any problem with those. Zope-2.7.6-final-win32.exe from zope.org has those problems; they're not holding up 2.8. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8, Five and Interfaces
Martijn Faassen wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: [snip] Right. Here's what we could do: 1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces 2. Keep Five's (redudant) interface definitions. They can stay at their status quo (status Zope 2.7, that is). 3. Add five:bridge / calls for every interface so that Five's interfaces are automatically kept up-to-date with the Zope 2.8 ones. The bridges would override the ones defined in the module, potentially updating with newer definitions. The only thing that we need to take care of is fallback for Zope 2.7 where the Zope 2 interfaces don't exist yet. So you would have the Zope 2.8 interfaces exist in the Five.interfaces module? Well, no. Five.interfaces would stay as it is; it seems to be pretty accurate for Zope 2.7 (especially with yuppie's fixes, which should be merged to the Five-1.0 branch, btw). Some interfaces were added to Zope 2.8 and it would make sense to manage all of them in the Zope tree for the future, not the Five tree. However, when run within Zope 2.8, we want Five.interfaces to be most accurate, so we would install bridges in Zope 2.8 that bridge the Zope 2.8 interfaces to Five.interfaces. At least that was yuppie's latest idea andI think it's elegant. If not, we do have a compatibility problem. I don't think we will. Philipp P.S.: In case you're wondering why I haven't done any work on the Five wrt testing/i18n: My hard drive had a head crash, the laptop is in for repair :( This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8, Five and Interfaces
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: So you would have the Zope 2.8 interfaces exist in the Five.interfaces module? Well, no. Five.interfaces would stay as it is; it seems to be pretty accurate for Zope 2.7 (especially with yuppie's fixes, which should be merged to the Five-1.0 branch, btw). Some interfaces were added to Zope 2.8 and it would make sense to manage all of them in the Zope tree for the future, not the Five tree. However, when run within Zope 2.8, we want Five.interfaces to be most accurate, so we would install bridges in Zope 2.8 that bridge the Zope 2.8 interfaces to Five.interfaces. At least that was yuppie's latest idea andI think it's elegant. Well. This was not my *latest* idea. I tried to implement it that way, but that approach has some limitations: - While we want to get rid of z2 interfaces in the long run, this requires to add z2 interfaces to Zope. - You did use schema fields for the z3 interfaces. Backporting these interfaces to z2 interfaces is a regression. - It's not as easy to import bridged interfaces as to import static interfaces. We have to make sure they are already created. Please see me new proposal, posted today. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8, Five and Interfaces
Hi! Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Right. Here's what we could do: 1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces I would prefer to reserve the name 'interfaces' for Zope 3 interfaces. So far ZopeTestCase is the only package in Zope 2.8 that uses 'interfaces' for Zope 2 interfaces. 2. Keep Five's (redudant) interface definitions. They can stay at their status quo (status Zope 2.7, that is). 3. Add five:bridge / calls for every interface so that Five's interfaces are automatically kept up-to-date with the Zope 2.8 ones. The bridges would override the ones defined in the module, potentially updating with newer definitions. The only thing that we need to take care of is fallback for Zope 2.7 where the Zope 2 interfaces don't exist yet. Would this work: Instead of modifying Five at all, could we just add zcml files to the Zope 2.8 packages with Zope 2 interfaces and override the interfaces in Five.interfaces? If you want to do this, yuppie, feel free to do it. I would even be ok for this to be done for the 1.0 branch, provided you also add it on the trunk. If I need to change something in Five: Do I need additional checkin rights on codespeak, or will my kupu login work? Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8, Five and Interfaces
yuppie wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Right. Here's what we could do: 1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces I would prefer to reserve the name 'interfaces' for Zope 3 interfaces. So far ZopeTestCase is the only package in Zope 2.8 that uses 'interfaces' for Zope 2 interfaces. Ok. I don't really care that much. 2. Keep Five's (redudant) interface definitions. They can stay at their status quo (status Zope 2.7, that is). 3. Add five:bridge / calls for every interface so that Five's interfaces are automatically kept up-to-date with the Zope 2.8 ones. The bridges would override the ones defined in the module, potentially updating with newer definitions. The only thing that we need to take care of is fallback for Zope 2.7 where the Zope 2 interfaces don't exist yet. Would this work: Instead of modifying Five at all, could we just add zcml files to the Zope 2.8 packages with Zope 2 interfaces and override the interfaces in Five.interfaces? Yes. We could, for example, add another Product to Zope 2.8 (e.g. 'BridgeInterfaces') that contains a configure.zcml file that does this; that way the ZCML file gets automatically picked up by Five. I leave it to you and the others to decide whether to use this approach (add additional ZCML files to Zope 2.8) or whether to modify Five. I guess your suggestion is slightly more elegant. If you want to do this, yuppie, feel free to do it. I would even be ok for this to be done for the 1.0 branch, provided you also add it on the trunk. If I need to change something in Five: Do I need additional checkin rights on codespeak, or will my kupu login work? Your kupu login will work. Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 8:00 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote: I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well. Are you thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the regular PathIndex? I succeeded in merging the ExtendedPathIndex code with the existing PathIndex code without changing the existing behaviour (means all original tests + the new tests) pass. Andreas pgpzfM5WuKiur.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote: I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well. Are you thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the regular PathIndex? Also, what is the IP status of the code? Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zope Corporation Zope Dealers http://www.zope.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCVSDhGqWXf00rNCgRAklQAJ0WH6k23gjaEroC7MoTC1pN/kSaFQCeJ9vg GaRdPAEOYOa0D0eac17VmoQ= =ulEx -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 8:00 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well. Are you thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the regular PathIndex? Also, what is the IP status of the code? It extends the PathIndex and has a different behaviour. So making the functionality part of the existing PathIndex would break the exisiting behaviour therefore it should be included as second path index. The license is BSD or ZPL but not GPL :-) Andreas pgppabT3AU8Sz.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8
Christian Theune wrote: - Does a proposal for the post-traverse-hook have a chance for 2.8? (The code is here completely working on 2.7, I only need to write tests.) Please, write tests and merge to the HEAD. I see no reason why this shouldn't go into 2.8. Cheers, Evan @ 4-am ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.8?
Sorry for creating a mess, I get the error with and without VerboseSecurity. The one VerboseSecurity I am using is only a couple of days old from CVS. I thought this one was allready adapted. Robert On Saturday 17 January 2004 16:04, Jim Fulton wrote: Gfeller Martin wrote: Dear Jim, are there already plans when Zope 2.8 should see the light of the day? Other than soon, no. It depend on resources, including non-ZC contributors, and problems we encounter. I've updated the project area at: http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8 including the milestone plan: http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8/MilestonePlan We're mostly interested in the ZODB 3.3 features, i.e., getting rid of Extension Classes. Well, I hope you've been trying out the ZODB 3.3 releases and providing feedback. Jim ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
