On 12/11/06, Alec Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This code isn't about a RAMCache which lives across threads and
requests, but is a short-lived cache which is bound to a particular
request. It's purpose is to make multiple calls to the same
I feel that I understand how this solution is
Justizin wrote:
This is incorrect. If we are storing generated values based on:
(context, view_name, method_name, keywords)
This is an entirely acceptable key for:
Zope2 RAMCacheManager
Zope3 RAMCache
MemcachedManager, which could be based on either of the above
Sure, but that doesn't
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:35:07 -0500, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:34:08 -0800, Kapil Thangavelu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- iterate - This is important. I grabbed hold of the locking bundle
this weekend to try and move things forward. I don't know who o
On 12/11/06, Kapil Thangavelu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:35:07 -0500, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:34:08 -0800, Kapil Thangavelu
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> - iterate - This is important. I grabbed hold of the locking bundle
>
On 12/11/06, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any progress on the following, Sidnei? (I have seen checkins on the
branch, but it's hard for me to figure out what state it is in :)
I haven't gotten to the page templates yet. The reason is that I'm
using this to generate XML descriptions
Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:39:18 -0800 keltezéssel Alec Mitchell azt írta:
>> >> To get the UI to work, I want to provide a couple of viewlets that (a)
>> >> trigger the auto-lock when base_edit is found (b) remove the auto-lock
>> >> when the base_edit form is unloaded (probably in JS) and
>> >
>> > Tha
Hi Balazs,
I think we're fine for now - the main thing we will need is some kind
of KSS event corresponding to onFormUnload, so that we can release
locks if a user clicks away from a page without saving or cancelling.
Speaking of which, how is the KSS merge work going? What remains? What
help do
Do people have opinions on this:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/177
It seems to be a very trivial patch to AT, and it could be really
useful, but I don't know about the implications for installers and how
bad the performance overhead would be.
Daniel, thoughts on this for AT trunk?
Ma
On Mon, 2006-11-12 at 13:43 +, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Do people have opinions on this:
>
> http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/177
>
> It seems to be a very trivial patch to AT, and it could be really
> useful, but I don't know about the implications for installers and how
> bad the perfo
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:43:18 -0500, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do people have opinions on this:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/177
It seems to be a very trivial patch to AT, and it could be really
useful, but I don't know about the implications for installers and how
bad
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:55:07 -0500, Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-12 at 13:43 +, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Do people have opinions on this:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/177
It seems to be a very trivial patch to AT, and it could be really
useful, but I don't
Hi guys,
Daniel just gave me the go-ahead to let Archetypes trunk depend on
plone.app.locking. plone.app.locking depends on Zope 2 security +
webdav and Zope 3 components.
Daniel pointed out that it's a bit odd for Archetypes to depend on
plone.app (Plone-the-application) and really, plone.app.l
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:55:07 -0500, Rocky Burt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2006-11-12 at 13:43 +, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> Do people have opinions on this:
>>>
>>> http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/177
>>>
>>> It seems to be a very trivial patch to
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Daniel pointed out that it's a bit odd for Archetypes to depend on
> plone.app (Plone-the-application) and really, plone.app.locking is not
> Plone app specific. It is also not "pure Zope 3", though.
Is the Zope 2 dependency an implementation detail or as an inher
On 12/11/06, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Daniel pointed out that it's a bit odd for Archetypes to depend on
> plone.app (Plone-the-application) and really, plone.app.locking is not
> Plone app specific. It is also not "pure Zope 3", though.
Is th
Ops, sent only to Rocky.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Dec 11, 2006 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 177 - Content indexing
To: Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Personally I think this plip would be awesome to get in place.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:38:39 -0500, Daniel Nouri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:55:07 -0500, Rocky Burt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-12 at 13:43 +, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Do people have opinions on this:
http://plone.org/products/
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:08:40 -0500, Sidnei da Silva
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Dec 11, 2006 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 177 - Content indexing
To: Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Person
On 12/11/06, Kapil Thangavelu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am seriously concerned about the str(content) part. We have improved
> a lot the situation in other places in AT and it should not do that
> anywere else anymore (except in the transforms maybe). We need to
> fight that will all our for
Previously Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> So we need to fix that. We can surely provide a 'stream' adapter for
> FileField. We should be able to change the transform API to make use
> of streams.
For 3.5 I'ld love to see a whole new transform infrastructure :)
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PRO
On 12/11/06, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Previously Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> So we need to fix that. We can surely provide a 'stream' adapter for
> FileField. We should be able to change the transform API to make use
> of streams.
For 3.5 I'ld love to see a whole new transform in
Hi guys,
I think LinkIntegrity is nearly ready for merging. Before doing so, I
have a few caveats, and I'd like to have someone else take a look over
the code.
Good points:
1) It works
2) It requires very little integration; a marker placed on the request
in folder_delete.cpy (to avoid an
22 matches
Mail list logo
