Re: [Zope3-dev] Extrinsic references
Am Samstag, 12. November 2005 17:15 schrieb Jim Fulton: We have a *simple* facility for managing references between objects extrinsically. See: http://svn.zope.org/Sandbox/zc/extrinsicreference/extrinsicref erence.txt?view=markup If there is sufficient interest, we plan to move this (tiny) project to the zope repository. +1 ... though it does not provide a complete solution for what I am thinking about concerning the relation management stuff; but it is a solution for a lot of use cases and may also provide the basis for an implementation of a richer relation management framework. Helmut ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: branched Zope 2.9
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 12. November 2005 22:08:38 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI (this is mostly for the benefit of the Five folks), I've created a Zope 2.9 branch from the trunk as of about 10 minutes ago. This branch is frozen for feature work; it may need some changing of externals to reflect what we want the initial version of Zope 3 that we want 2.9 to ship with. I don't know what that version is, so this is a note to say that if these externals changes get made on the Zope 2 trunk, please also make them on the 2.9 branch. I would have created the 2.9 branch in case the current trunk would be ready to branch. At least one week ago there were unresolved issues (with zpkg I think) that deferred the 2.9 release (scheduled for last Monday). So in general what is the current state of the remaining work to get 2.9b1 out to the people? There are a couple of things that need to be addressed: - Make zpkg support top-level modules. I've started work on this but I had to do some other stuff in the mean time (was busy with my actual work). I'll try to look at it this week. - Revise the zope.app stitching and also decide what of Zope 3 goes into Zope 2.8 and what not. I guess people want zope.formlib, for example, and it would make sense to include it in Zope 2.9 if it's also in Zope 3.2. - Sort out any remaining issues with the in-place build system. IIRC, only two things aren't working anymore: The ability to build out-of-place (e.g. create a build tree in an empty dir) and the ability to do make install from a checkout. The zpkg in-place build system doesn't support those, somebody would have to make it support it if they wanted these features. Maybe there's more, I'm not claiming to be complete on this. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Yet Another Relations (aka Reference) Engine...
Helmut Merz wrote: Anyway, what we are talking about are not references. The approach is quite different: references start from the objects themselves that they connect to other objects using one-way relations (a pointer, an arrow). The application has to know how to interpret the references. I don't think that you can build a robust relation engine only with that. Relations start from the top: you first define an ontology (a set of general predicates) that you use to relate the objects of your application. This is a conceptual schema. Here is the cpsskins ontology: http://svn.nuxeo.org/trac/pub/file/z3lab/cpsskins/branches/jmo-perspectives/ontology.py The relation engine then manages all the necessary references, but the application does not need to know about the references at all. The interaction with the relation engine is done only via the ontology. To compare with python: references are to relations what methods are to classes. A set of unrelated methods doesn't make a model, similarly a set of loose references doesn't make an ontology. /JM ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] branched Zope 2.9
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 12. November 2005 22:08:38 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI (this is mostly for the benefit of the Five folks), I've created a Zope 2.9 branch from the trunk as of about 10 minutes ago. This branch is frozen for feature work; it may need some changing of externals to reflect what we want the initial version of Zope 3 that we want 2.9 to ship with. I don't know what that version is, so this is a note to say that if these externals changes get made on the Zope 2 trunk, please also make them on the 2.9 branch. I would have created the 2.9 branch in case the current trunk would be ready to branch. At least one week ago there were unresolved issues (with zpkg I think) that deferred the 2.9 release (scheduled for last Monday). So in general what is the current state of the remaining work to get 2.9b1 out to the people? Do you also track bugs? I'm not sure how, aside from feature completeness, we decide we're ready for a beta. For Zope 3, we prioritize bugs as critical to indicate that they must be resolved before a release. Is there a similar process for Zope 2. I realize that you make a significant contribution just making the release. I'm not sure if you are also trying to be the one to decide (or to manage the decision) to make releases. We currently have 9 critical Zope 2 bugs. I don't know if that has the same significane as for Zope 3. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] branched Zope 2.9
--On 13. November 2005 10:55:19 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you also track bugs? I can only what I know of. If there are bugs then they should be documented in the collector. I'm not sure how, aside from feature completeness, we decide we're ready for a beta. For Zope 3, we prioritize bugs as critical to indicate that they must be resolved before a release. Is there a similar process for Zope 2. There are no 2.9 related issues in the collector but I assume there a bunch of unreported issues. I realize that you make a significant contribution just making the release. Jup. I'm not sure if you are also trying to be the one to decide (or to manage the decision) to make releases. The decision to make release basically depends on the OK from everyone having contributed lately to the trunk. This affects basically the Five contributions, the zpkg changes and some changes from you. So that's why was asking about the status (see my other posting on zope-dev). We currently have 9 critical Zope 2 bugs. Where are they documented? They should be documented in the collector or least there should be some communication on zope-dev about ongoing release issues. I can not follow every discussions on IRC (time constraints, different timezones).. Andreas pgpV2rQD1q6lz.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Yet Another Relations (aka Reference) Engine...
Am Sonntag, 13. November 2005 12:07 schrieb Jean-Marc Orliaguet: Helmut Merz wrote: Anyway, what we are talking about are not references. The approach is quite different: references start from the objects themselves that they connect to other objects using one-way relations (a pointer, an arrow). And this can be easily implemented by using assignments to object attributes. The application has to know how to interpret the references. I don't think that you can build a robust relation engine only with that. Relations start from the top: you first define an ontology (a set of general predicates) that you use to relate the objects of your application. This is a conceptual schema. Here is the cpsskins ontology: http://svn.nuxeo.org/trac/pub/file/z3lab/cpsskins/branches/jmo -perspectives/ontology.py The relation engine then manages all the necessary references, but the application does not need to know about the references at all. The interaction with the relation engine is done only via the ontology. OK, I see. I now also understand why you include monadic relations which could just be attributes or annotations... (I ignored them up to now but I think I should change this.) OTOH I'd like to have a relation management API that could as well be used for cases where the relations are controlled by the application or the objects involved. This is then just a convenience API that cares about the problems of keeping up-to-date references in both directions, deletion handling, the complexity arising with connecting more than two objects, attributed or annotated relations, etc. Helmut ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] branched Zope 2.9
[Andreas Jung] ... There are no 2.9 related issues in the collector but I assume there a bunch of unreported issues. That the Zope trunk tests fail on Windows should be a 2.9 release issue, yes? Windows test failures on Zope trunk http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1931 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] branched Zope 2.9
--On 13. November 2005 11:25:21 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/collector_contents?searching=yepSear chableText=status%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=Acceptedstatus%3Alist%3Aignore_ empty=Pendingclassifications%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=bugimportances%3Alis t%3Aignore_empty=critical Ups, I got your point. I thought you were talking about 9 critical error *directly* related to Zope 2.9 e.g. the packaging issue, Five etc..I am aware of this issues. Issue marked by the issuer as critical might appear critical to them..so one needs to decide which issues are blockers. Andreas pgp9Fw9W71QVq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] branched Zope 2.9
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 13. November 2005 11:25:21 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/collector_contents?searching=yepSear chableText=status%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=Acceptedstatus%3Alist%3Aignore_ empty=Pendingclassifications%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=bugimportances%3Alis t%3Aignore_empty=critical Ups, I got your point. I thought you were talking about 9 critical error *directly* related to Zope 2.9 e.g. the packaging issue, Five etc..I am aware of this issues. Issue marked by the issuer as critical might appear critical to them..so one needs to decide which issues are blockers. Yup. :) Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: branched Zope 2.9
--On 13. November 2005 20:33:01 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs. Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful. There is no way to enforce contributors to fix bugs. Speaking for myself I look at bugs from time to time and see what I can fix. There are bunch of bugs where you don't know if it is a bug or a feature...it's basically a question of having time... -aj pgpSbJILq4iLv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Re: branched Zope 2.9
What about making the banch but calling it an alpha release? I suspect many more people would have a chance to kick the tires if they could download binaries. You may find some of the critical bugs actually only occur in very specific circumstances, or that there are other, even more critical bugs hiding. I think most people are mature enough to understand what an alpha release is, and treat it as such. Just a thought, --Craeg Andreas Jung wrote: --On 13. November 2005 20:33:01 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs. Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful. There is no way to enforce contributors to fix bugs. Speaking for myself I look at bugs from time to time and see what I can fix. There are bunch of bugs where you don't know if it is a bug or a feature...it's basically a question of having time... -aj ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: zope3 website report?
Hi Valeri, I can help to review existing Zope3Dev wiki. May be create list: wiki -- status. Statuses may be: -- outdated -- under development (still requires further agreement) -- recomended (tried and tested) RIght? Such a list would be very useful. But I think the states recommended and outdated are sufficient (at least for the moment). If in doubt I would take over the contribution and let the recipients decide whether they make any use of the contribution or not. If you send this list to me I will integrate it into the importer. Thanks for the help, Uwe Dr. Uwe Oestermeier Institut für Wissensmedien Knowledge Media Research Center Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40 D-72072 Tuebingen Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. +49 7071 979-208 Fax +49 7071 979-100 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: zope3 website report?
On Sunday 13 November 2005 13:37, netlander wrote: I can help to review existing Zope3Dev wiki. May be create list: wiki -- status. Statuses may be: -- outdated -- under development (still requires further agreement) -- recomended (tried and tested) RIght? Note that those type of tags already exist and are used. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: branched Zope 2.9
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev] Andreas Jung wrote: Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs. Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful. Then let's try again :) There is no way to enforce contributors to fix bugs. Speaking for myself I look at bugs from time to time and see what I can fix. There are bunch of bugs where you don't know if it is a bug or a feature...it's basically a question of having time... But having specific days set aside is still a good incentive. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: branched Zope 2.9
--On 14. November 2005 02:42:31 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev] Andreas Jung wrote: Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs. Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful. Then let's try again :) You're going to organize them? :-) -aj pgpSDOb3FCt8m.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: Zope3 design question
You would need persistent schemas. Unfortunately persistent schemas are broken right now. Users would be able to 'extend' the schemas TTW. Persistent schemas do exactely allow this. The code is in the trunk, but your schemas will loose changes due to a bug. The problem is known, but has not been tackled. I'd like to help out with the bug (if possible). Do you know where I can find more information on the problem and also the details on how one would 'tackle' it? Thanks -ec ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Maybe bug in pagetemplate parser?
Hi all,
currently I'm trying to output a pretty tiny code
snippet in a page template, but the compilation
fails due to a nesting error. It seems as if the
pt engine erroneously parses the following snippet,
complaining about a nesting error on the closing
div:
script type=text/javascript
!--
document.write('div id=LOADING_DOCUMENT_HINTLoading document.
Please be patient.../div');
//--
/script
It also fails if I declare the whole script
content as XML CDATA section using 