Hi Steve,
Since you found the external methods arguments thing interesting, here's
another challenge for you... ;-)
(it's actually from the same nav_tree method)
I was trying to use 'if o in REQUEST.PARENTS' to expand branches on the
way to the currently displayed object and was running into
Chris Withers wrote:
I was trying to use 'if o in REQUEST.PARENTS' to expand branches on the
way to the currently displayed object and was running into trouble which
lead me to try out the following code:
`REQUEST.PARENTS[0]`+`o`+`o==REQUEST.PARENTS[0]`+`o is
REQUEST.PARENTS[0]`
Now,
Steve Alexander wrote:
Smells like an Acquisition Wrapper misunderstanding :-)
You should change your name to Jim...
...or have you been bitten by this before?
Do you know if objects in PARENTS are acquisition wrapped?
cheers and much we're-not-worthy'ing,
Chris
hi all,
from my own experience i know user nobody is 99 and group nobody is the
same on linux, but BSDs seem to have another convention there. on a
FreeBSD box i looked at right now nobody was user 65534 or so.
as chris mcdonough remarked earlier in this thread, it is much more
important to get
in this case, apache installation seems to be magically perfect :^)
or, in other words, zope is a great tool, but still needs a better
installation.
K.
hi all,
from my own experience i know user nobody is 99 and group nobody is the
same on linux, but BSDs seem to have another convention
Steve Alexander wrote:
Do you know if objects in PARENTS are acquisition wrapped?
I'm pretty sure that they are.
They are indeed, in fact, pretty much everything is :(
The only way to check if o is in PARENTS appears to be:
if o.aq_base in map (lambda o : o.aq_base,PARENTS):
..nice... :/
Chris Withers wrote:
Steve Alexander wrote:
Do you know if objects in PARENTS are acquisition wrapped?
I'm pretty sure that they are.
They are indeed, in fact, pretty much everything is :(
The only way to check if o is in PARENTS appears to be:
if o.aq_base in map (lambda o :
Steve Alexander wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
I have an external method called navTree (dtml-tree was too broken to
fix in the time frame :( ) with a spec as follows:
def navTree(self,start):
It's called in some DTML as:
dtml-var "nav_tree(PARENTS[-2])"
which is fine, unless
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
that last algorithm falls to pieces. The solution is to always provide
the "self" argument.
When calling or in the signature of your external method?
Both.
Declare it like this:
def external_method(self, ...other args...):
Use it like
Steve Alexander wrote:
Both.
def external_method(self, ...other args...):
dtml-var "external_method(this(),...other args..." ?
I'll go with this advice since I still can't make heads or tails which
of the two Shane thinks I need to do ;-)
Of course, it's not documented like this. I think
The other file (pcgi.soc) is a unix domain socket... it
gets created
when you run "python w_pcgi" as a Zope install command from
the source
distribution. I'm not sure of the danger of having this get created
777. It might be worthwhile to look into what could be done to it.
Steve Alexander wrote:
Latest ZPatterns release. Zope 2.2b4.
If I raise an error in an external method that is called by a
GenericTrigger, I sometimes get a strange log message:
various bits snipped
I've put the call to each Agent's "change observed" event in a
try-except block. This
It could cause a problem if the object is added after any other sort of
change from the point of view of the Agent. The Agent would view it as
having been added, when in fact it is actually merely changed. I have not,
however, been able to think of any scenario where this condition could
occur
Help! I downloaded a product and uploaded it to my directory, but I don't
know how to unzip it. I'm using NT. Whenever I load WinZip it will only
let me unzip it to local places on the hard disk but nowhere on the Zope
directory itself.
___
Chris McDonough wrote:
The other file (pcgi.soc) is a unix domain socket... it
gets created
when you run "python w_pcgi" as a Zope install command from
the source
distribution. I'm not sure of the danger of having this get created
777. It might be worthwhile to look into what
Hmmm... thanks for trying it. This doesn't seem much of a
risk, does
it?
Not that I can see off-hand. It is only a socket, a means for
communicating with Zope. The 'risk' would only lie in Zope's Security
mechanisms. ;-)
The only possible risk would be a DoS type manuever if
At 11:05 PM 7/12/00 +0100, Steve Alexander wrote:
ZPatterns 0.4.0a4
The file "version" reports it to be "ZPatterns-0-4-0a1". That gave me a
shock! I thought for a moment that I'd been working on an obsolete
edition :-)
Specialists.py, line 28, method getItem() needs a docstring.
Changes
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
