Hi again!
As discussed two days ago, I started working on integrating Five
interfaces closer into Zope 2.8. I believe I understand the problem
better now and like to propose a different way to resolve it:
Current State
=
Five (now part of Zope 2.8) ships with one big interfaces.py
--On Freitag, 6. Mai 2005 13:07 Uhr +0200 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Proposed Solution
=
1.) Adding ZCML that bridges existing z2 interfaces into the 'interfaces'
module of their package. [Zope 2.8.0]
2.) Copying z3 interfaces from Five.interfaces to the 'interfaces' module
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
yuppie wrote:
[snip]
Current State
=
Five (now part of Zope 2.8) ships with one big interfaces.py file that
contains z3 interfaces for Zope 2 core classes. (There are also some
five specific interfaces in that file, but they are not subject of this
proposal.)
interfaces.zcml states
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
-1. Such changes are not much acceptable *now*. 2.b2 will be released
this week and 2.8 final in about two weeks. Such changes should have
been proposed during alpha phase...but I am against such change in
this late release phase.
That's a good point. Let's amend the
Hi!
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
-1. Such changes are not much acceptable *now*. 2.b2 will be released
this week and 2.8 final in about two weeks. Such changes should have
been proposed during alpha phase...but I am against such change in
this late release phase.
For Zope 2.8
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
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
Hi!
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
[snip]
Current State
=
Five (now part of Zope 2.8) ships with one big interfaces.py file that
contains z3 interfaces for Zope 2 core classes. (There are also some
five specific interfaces in that file, but they are not subject of
this
yuppie wrote:
Proposed Solution
=
1.) Adding ZCML that bridges existing z2 interfaces into the
'interfaces' module of their package. [Zope 2.8.0]
+1
2.) Copying z3 interfaces from Five.interfaces to the 'interfaces'
module of the corresponding package. Marking those in Five as
yuppie wrote:
[snip]
This way, all the work that remains for me is to merge in Five 1.0
into Zope 2.8.
My point is:
Doing that in a backward compatible way is impossible. So we have to do
it now or never.
That's true, but it's not that difficult to ask people to change their
ZCML files to point
yuppie wrote:
Current State
=
Five (now part of Zope 2.8) ships with one big interfaces.py file
that contains z3 interfaces for Zope 2 core classes. (There are also
some five specific interfaces in that file, but they are not subject
of this proposal.)
interfaces.zcml states that
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
[snip]
This way, all the work that remains for me is to merge in Five 1.0
into Zope 2.8.
My point is:
Doing that in a backward compatible way is impossible. So we have to
do it now or never.
That's true, but it's not that difficult to ask people to change
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Seriously, you should merge your r11978 to the Five-1.0 branch.0
Martijn was faster than I thought :(
I'll follow up to this in an other mail.
I don't think we need to break backward compatability. We would just
need to deprecate the
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Proposed Solution
=
[...]
3.) Doing the same for Zope 2.7 with monkey patching code. [Five 1.0+]
I assume here you mean patching in OFS.interfaces, webdav.interfaces etc...
Yes.
4.) Making interfaces.zcml point to the new locations.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yes. I still don't see where the need for incompatability is. Maybe I'm
just blind. Can someone explain?
I no longer see a problem. If we make sure the Five interfaces and those
in the Zope tree are the same, there are no incompatibilities.
yuppie wrote:
I don't think we need to break backward compatability. We would just
need to deprecate the Five.interfaces location.
Basically, the goals are:
* The solution needs to work with Zope 2.7
* Preferrably, the interface import spelling should be equal on both
systems (which means a
yuppie wrote:
4.) Making interfaces.zcml point to the new locations. [Five 1.0+]
5.) Adding unit tests that verify interfaces and implementations.
[Zope 2.8.0]
IMHO that's yagni. We actually don't use interfaces that much for
verifying implementations anymore. I think their most common use in
yuppie wrote:
Yes. I still don't see where the need for incompatability is. Maybe
I'm just blind. Can someone explain?
I no longer see a problem. If we make sure the Five interfaces and those
in the Zope tree are the same, there are no incompatibilities.
By the way, I've just merged in Five 1.0
yuppie wrote:
By the way, I've just merged in Five 1.0 into Zope 2.8 (which was a
significant amount of work, due to all kinds of copyright headers
being different).
Can't we use the same headers for Five 1.0 and Zope 2.8? Both releases
are ZPL 2.1, aren't they? Are there other things you did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
4.) Making interfaces.zcml point to the new locations. [Five 1.0+]
5.) Adding unit tests that verify interfaces and implementations.
[Zope 2.8.0]
IMHO that's yagni. We actually don't use
Tres Seaver wrote:
Your unit test should exercise the whole API promised by an
implementation anyway, so often an explicit interface check is redudant
(of course, it can't hurt). verifyClass() per se isn't bad, it's in fact
a useful indicator, but having that it as a *sole* measure whether a
class
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Your unit test should exercise the whole API promised by an
implementation anyway, so often an explicit interface check is redudant
(of course, it can't hurt). verifyClass() per se isn't bad, it's in fact
a useful indicator, but having
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Can't we use the same headers for Five 1.0 and Zope 2.8? Both releases
are ZPL 2.1, aren't they? Are there other things you did have to change?
Yes, some other things like taking out the monkey.py module, and some
documentation differences.
I want to get the headers in
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
By the way, I've just merged in Five 1.0 into Zope 2.8 (which was a
significant amount of work, due to all kinds of copyright headers
being different).
Can't we use the same headers for Five 1.0 and Zope 2.8? Both releases
are ZPL 2.1, aren't they? Are there
Dave Whiteley wrote:
Hello,
I am very new to zope, and I am not an experienced lisp programmer -
please accept the standard Newbie apologies. I am avoiding the use of
DHTML, as this seems to be the approved policy. Most of my work has
been using page templates, and internal and external python
Thanks, magic again.
Give yourselves all bug hugs.
Dave
--
Dave Whiteley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone +44 (0)113 343 2059
School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
The University of Leeds. Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
___
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
Hi there,
I have a problem using MySQLdb and unicode.
with older version (0.92) I could set a parameter unicode to the
connect() method to tell MySQLdb what charset to use.
This parameter is not accepted anymore.
The only way to deal with non ascii character I found was setting
pythons default
This may be a really simple thing to do (but I'm a bit stuck and
searched the web but found no answers). I have a Plone site working
great. I have a folder which I wish to password protect (and all of the
data in the folder). Thing is, I want to use our LDAP server for
authentication. I
On May 6, 2005, at 12:08 , Phil Beardmore wrote:
This may be a really simple thing to do (but I'm a bit stuck and
searched the web but found no answers). I have a Plone site
working great. I have a folder which I wish to password protect
(and all of the data in the folder). Thing is, I
On 06.Mai 2005 - 12:44:24, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On May 6, 2005, at 12:08 , Phil Beardmore wrote:
This may be a really simple thing to do (but I'm a bit stuck and searched
the web but found no answers). I have a Plone site working great. I have
a
folder which I wish to password
+---[ Andreas Pakulat ]--
| On 06.Mai 2005 - 12:44:24, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
|
| On May 6, 2005, at 12:08 , Phil Beardmore wrote:
|
| This may be a really simple thing to do (but I'm a bit stuck and searched
| the web but found no answers). I have a Plone site
On May 6, 2005, at 1:24 , Andreas Pakulat wrote:
There is nothing you set up to make Zope use a user folder. It will
automatically be consulted.
As long as the object has an id of acl_users.
Umh, no. First of all, all user folders have that ID. If not, they
are not user folders. Secondly, the
On May 6, 2005, at 1:26 , Andrew Milton wrote:
| There is nothing you set up to make Zope use a user folder.
It will
| automatically be consulted.
|
| As long as the object has an id of acl_users.
And the containing folder has __allow_groups__ attribute set to
that user
folder.
In fact
Hi Guys, still cant get it to work. Is it okay to have multiple
ACL_users folders? Basdically I want to grant access to Folder A to all
users in one tree of our LDAP server, then grant access to Folder B to
all users in another Tree. I can get the folder to be password
protected, so they
On May 6, 2005, at 2:23 , Phil Beardmore wrote:
Hi Guys, still cant get it to work. Is it okay to have multiple
ACL_users folders? Basdically I want to grant access to Folder A
to all users in one tree of our LDAP server, then grant access to
Folder B to all users in another Tree. I can
Hello!
I'd like a little help, please :)
I have a site that uses PluggableUserFolders for its acl_users.
The web-based portion of the login process locks out a user
after 3 unsuccessfull attempts at the password and i'd like to be
able to do something similar for users who try to connect
via
On 5/6/05, robert rottermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
I have a problem using MySQLdb and unicode.
with older version (0.92) I could set a parameter unicode to the
connect() method to tell MySQLdb what charset to use.
This parameter is not accepted anymore.
The only way to deal
Hi,
I am attempting to make a zope product (a custom book-database for use
by my employer) and of course want to secure it. I have added this code
to my class:
security = ClassSecurityInfo()
security.setDefaultAccess(deny)
security.declareProtected(View Bookbase, index_html)
--On Freitag, 6. Mai 2005 18:19 Uhr +0200 Anders Bruun Olsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It works if I do setDefaultAccess(allow), but I don't want to allow
access by default and then just deny for those I know I want to deny
access to. I want it the other way around.
Why don't you write an
Hi all,
I'm new to Zope, getting started with the minimal project
(http://www.zope.org/Members/maxm/HowTo/minimal_01). For whatever
reason, minimal doesn't work out of the box. That would be fine except
that when I start Zope with zopectl it reports status as fine and the
process runs, but I don't
Konrad Rokicki wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new to Zope, getting started with the minimal project
(http://www.zope.org/Members/maxm/HowTo/minimal_01). For whatever
reason, minimal doesn't work out of the box. That would be fine except
that when I start Zope with zopectl it reports status as fine and the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Konrad Rokicki wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new to Zope, getting started with the minimal project
(http://www.zope.org/Members/maxm/HowTo/minimal_01). For whatever
reason, minimal doesn't work out of the box. That would be fine except
that when I start
jcc, I apologize for replying directly, here it is again for a list:
Without debug mode, Zope will start up, but the Product will be broken,
and its failure listed in the Products section of the Control Panel.
This would be a decent workaround the lack of logging if it worked. My
problem is
mark hellewell wrote at 2005-5-6 14:44 +0100:
I have a site that uses PluggableUserFolders for its acl_users.
The web-based portion of the login process locks out a user
after 3 unsuccessfull attempts at the password and i'd like to be
able to do something similar for users who try to connect
via
Marco Bizzarri wrote at 2005-5-5 18:07 +0200:
While debugging an application of us I suspected we had a memory leak,
so I started with the usual divide et impera approach, trying to figure
where exactly was the problem.
I tried to reproduce your problem and I used 1.000 requests per round.
hi out there!
there's been some discussion about utf-8 vs. unicode strings on the
list lately. i'd like to ask if my gained understandings are correct
und thus possibly make it clear to others also.
i have set my python default encoding to utf-8, i always send http
responses from zope as utf-8
Am Freitag, den 06.05.2005, 19:26 +0100 schrieb mark hellewell:
On 5/6/05, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WebDAV uses basic HTTP authentication which should use whatever
UserFolder you have installed.
Thanks.. So, I think I should be able to modify the authentication plugin
of
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Marco Bizzarri wrote at 2005-5-5 18:07 +0200:
While debugging an application of us I suspected we had a memory leak,
so I started with the usual divide et impera approach, trying to figure
where exactly was the problem.
I tried to reproduce your problem and I used
Am Freitag, den 06.05.2005, 19:40 +0200 schrieb Jürgen Herrmann:
hi out there!
there's been some discussion about utf-8 vs. unicode strings on the
list lately. i'd like to ask if my gained understandings are correct
und thus possibly make it clear to others also.
i have set my python
On 5/6/05, Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it does not. You have no such thing like a session
when all you have is webdav. I dont know if many dav-clients
store cookies too - it may depend on your usecase.
Yes the use-case is Windows Explorer users only.
Without cookies
51 matches
Mail list logo
