[Zope-dev] Moving ZopeVersionControl to subversion?
I noticed that ZopeVersionControl is still actively maintained in CVS. Would its maintainers mind moving it to subversion? That would make it a lot easier for us to include it in the Plone 3.0 bundle. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ 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: [ZODB] probable small hole in transaction management
Recently, I reported: Dieter Maurer wrote at 2006-9-24 16:28 +0200: ATT: Crosspost. Please reply to zodb-dev@zope.org (Reply-To header set). We recently have had a problem that seems to indicate a small hole in ZODB (3.4) transaction management. ... I may have found the cause for this problem -- although I do not yet understand it fully: The ConnectionStateError came from a ZODB.Mount.MountedConnectionCloser.__call__. This indicated that we used an old style ZODB.Mount.MountPoint. Those mountpoints do not garantee that they stick to the same root connection. If their cache contains references to other persistent objects in other storages (e.g. via volatile attributes), then a vital requirement for use of persistent objects may get violated: a persistent object may only be used in the context of its connection. Failure to observe this restriction may cause all kinds of nasty errors... The temp_folder proved to be the old style MountPoint. Our storage is very old (back from 2001). Then, temp_folder still used the old style MountPoint. Newer Zope versions use Products.ZODBMountPoint.MountedObject.MountedObject (which does not have the problem described above) *BUT* do not replace an old style by a new style mount point. A broken temp_folder may survive... -- Dieter ___ 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] Moving ZopeVersionControl to subversion?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6 Oct 2006, at 17:38, Wichert Akkerman wrote: I noticed that ZopeVersionControl is still actively maintained in CVS. Would its maintainers mind moving it to subversion? That would make it a lot easier for us to include it in the Plone 3.0 bundle. I don't think it *has* a maintainer... I think the sandbox for moving items from CVS to SVN that I built on cvs.zope.org for items like CMF and PAS still exists and I could do the physical move. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFJt7eRAx5nvEhZLIRAniDAJ9/Nn4yWmNAeh1z0zU72+3NS9N1QgCfYCtn Xpc3QpMzcbTR1KM7j2aBhLw= =hCt9 -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] TimerService/ZopeScheduler runs but doesn't run scripts......
michaelntmilne wrote: And anyway a bit of sport is enjoyable...:-) So is a bit of procmail magic, goodbye michael ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Surprising load test results?
Martijn Faassen wrote: The speed drop in ZPT I think is due to using Zope 3's ZPT engine in 2.10. Zope 3 has, unless someone tells me otherwise, the policy of being slow but right at the moment. Optimisation may be something the Zope 3 guys want to focus on once they've finished refactoring everything to death for the 7th or 8th time ;-) Chris, the Zope 3 people actually spent a lot of time speeding up component architecture bits in Zope 3.3. People complain that its API got better, um, refactored, but it also got sped up quite a bit. Sorry, yes, that wasn't a fair comment and I apologise. It appears TAL is slower in 2.10.0b2 vanilla, but a lot faster in 2.10.b2 WSGI. That's pretty bizarre indeed. If I read Tres comment correctly, he's saying I don't trust your test results ;-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Surprising load test results?
Ok, so far, list feedback is: + WSGI test looks wrong + 100 concurrent threads looks a little heavy + results are not the same as Tres' ones So, as soon as possible, we will try to make some more tests and will let you know when the wiki page is updated. Thanks a lot for the feedback so far. Pascal De : Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date : Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:21:04 +0200 À : Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : Federico Schwindt [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pascal Peregrina [EMAIL PROTECTED], zope@zope.org zope@zope.org Objet : Re: [Zope] Surprising load test results? Surprising indeed. Why then the static content is so much slower is again weird. It almost looks like there's a fixed speed for WSGI. Someone who knows more about how the WSGI support may be able to say more... WSGI in itself should not make a difference there. However, if the WSGI server used is Twisted, then Twisted has a higher overhead per request than ZServer. However, these results seem to indicate that this overhead suddenly becomes the major factor, which clearly is impossible. the number of concurrent requests were 100 It's usually a good idea to test this with smaller numbers of concurrent requests as well, to see how speed reacts to increasing loads. Those WSGI tests make no sense, I think they are somehow faulty. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] TimerService/ZopeScheduler runs but doesn't run scripts......
--On 6. Oktober 2006 11:33:43 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: michaelntmilne wrote: And anyway a bit of sport is enjoyable...:-) So is a bit of procmail magic, goodbye michael ;-) Be aware: he changes his email address. That's why he escaped from my blacklist. -aj pgpKGQZXj5TnX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] TimerService/ZopeScheduler runs but doesn't run scripts......
Andreas Jung wrote: Be aware: he changes his email address. Probably gets banned by the various free providers he abuses ;-) That's why he escaped from my blacklist. probably filtering on milne in the To field will be enough... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] TimerService/ZopeScheduler runs but doesn't run scripts......
My email address has changed as there have been issues with sending from Gmail not due to any covert operation or attempt to get round any silly blacklists you've set up. I'm frankly relieved that you've done this as I don't particularly find both your inputs helpful or useful. There are many others on this list which provide brilliant advice without any of the emotive, attitude based comments that are simply childish. And others have the same opinion.Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: Be aware: he changes his email address. Probably gets banned by the various free providers he abuses ;-) That's why he escaped from my blacklist.probably filtering on "milne" in the To field will be enough...Chris-- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting- http://www.simplistix.co.uk To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Surprising load test results?
On 10/6/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Federico Schwindt wrote: What do you mean by wsgi enabled? How does wsgi+ differ from wsgi? The wsgi directive was enabled in 2.10.0b2. Okay, but what does this actually do? use a different web server. [..] The speed drop in ZPT I think is due to using Zope 3's ZPT engine in 2.10. Zope 3 has, unless someone tells me otherwise, the policy of being slow but right at the moment. Optimisation may be something the Zope 3 guys want to focus on once they've finished refactoring everything to death for the 7th or 8th time ;-) yes, i think that's the cause of the tal speedup in 2.10, Urm, I was commenting that tal had slowed down in 2.10... yes, i got messed up here, sorry. i meant that with wsgi it seemed to be a bit faster but then all the results posted by tres indicates otherwise so we'll repeat the tests and see what the results are. but then static content is painfully slower. Really? Is that a comment based on the graphs or on actual use? tests results. .f- ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] [Fwd: [USN-359-1] Python vulnerability]
ouch... I'd imagine Zope is vulnerable to this? What source version(s) of python have these problems fixed? cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ---BeginMessage--- === Ubuntu Security Notice USN-359-1 October 06, 2006 python2.3, python2.4 vulnerability CVE-2006-4980 === A security issue affects the following Ubuntu releases: Ubuntu 5.04 Ubuntu 5.10 Ubuntu 6.06 LTS This advisory also applies to the corresponding versions of Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and Xubuntu. The problem can be corrected by upgrading your system to the following package versions: Ubuntu 5.04: python2.32.3.5-2ubuntu0.3 python2.4-minimal2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2 Ubuntu 5.10: python2.32.3.5-8ubuntu0.2 python2.4-minimal2.4.2-1ubuntu0.2 Ubuntu 6.06 LTS: python2.3-dbg2.3.5-9ubuntu1.2 python2.4-minimal2.4.3-0ubuntu6 In general, a standard system upgrade is sufficient to effect the necessary changes. Details follow: Benjamin C. Wiley Sittler discovered that Python's repr() function did not properly handle UTF-32/UCS-4 strings. If an application uses repr() on arbitrary untrusted data, this could be exploited to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the python application. Updated packages for Ubuntu 5.04: Source archives: http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.3/python2.3_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3.diff.gz Size/MD5: 2357500 bea365d1d6c98d54a2ba2c1300253cf9 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.3/python2.3_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3.dsc Size/MD5: 1152 b8b1b1a1ff18ddb962f059fe836bb370 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.3/python2.3_2.3.5.orig.tar.gz Size/MD5: 8512566 9c35e5ca3c487e1c1f70f2fb1ccbfffe http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2.diff.gz Size/MD5: 2601919 042484bbb7dc5a2e03d6997de0f2a398 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2.dsc Size/MD5: 1141 1bcd362ffbac62716bb34a1dd2f043b4 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4_2.4.1.orig.tar.gz Size/MD5: 9205762 0475655d5c6f7919fc977c42c1103af8 Architecture independent packages: http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.3/idle-python2.3_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_all.deb Size/MD5: 235652 3dfdb7ae46bc14c8742c8cf771fe0ecb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.4/idle-python2.4_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2_all.deb Size/MD5: 240584 809b8060bab7e3a588c48155fd412aee http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.3/python2.3-doc_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_all.deb Size/MD5: 2860646 45e662a6c0422763329dc381db1b899e http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.3/python2.3-examples_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_all.deb Size/MD5: 512962 19dd20632aa00a9d36958b3803129197 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-doc_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2_all.deb Size/MD5: 3323478 7afd731df65520151337df8f1ca2bf9a http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-examples_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2_all.deb Size/MD5: 579828 20a9f6a971ef3aa8d7618921bf296c5e amd64 architecture (Athlon64, Opteron, EM64T Xeon) http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.3/python2.3-dev_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_amd64.deb Size/MD5: 1593658 e170994d3161032229e65c658c4b9833 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.3/python2.3-gdbm_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_amd64.deb Size/MD5:27142 951c53e20261acf2e2ba07317f40aaac http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.3/python2.3-mpz_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_amd64.deb Size/MD5:31942 9c4a3feae66a59b5de888d9fcfd35eeb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.3/python2.3-tk_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_amd64.deb Size/MD5: 109776 8e675863b272dc7955e3f374f85349bd http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.3/python2.3_2.3.5-2ubuntu0.3_amd64.deb Size/MD5: 3035892 4334bd09aee4dcc02d87dacd2d87d6d9 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.4/python2.4-dbg_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2_amd64.deb Size/MD5: 4285084 f0efd6ba55308df0c4dd901262fe6789 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-dev_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2_amd64.deb Size/MD5: 1682228 b5a23d40dc9b78aaae0c77911f74dfa7 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-gdbm_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2_amd64.deb Size/MD5:28006 5abb3d105f9be8e876f1f4780450d08d http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-minimal_2.4.1-0ubuntu0.2_amd64.deb Size/MD5: 807100
[Zope] Re: [Fwd: [USN-359-1] Python vulnerability]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Withers wrote: ouch... I'd imagine Zope is vulnerable to this? What source version(s) of python have these problems fixed? I think the issue only surfaces if you compile Python for UCS4, which the desktop-centric versions shipped by the distros do. If you build Python using the default config, it uses UCS2 (which is a better choice for long-running appservers, anyway). I just verified this by running the example code from the SF bug[1]: it aborts when run with Ubuntu's own python2.4, but not with the one I run Zope with. Python 2.4.4 will have this fix, when released. [1] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1541585group_id=5470atid=305470 Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFJoUz+gerLs4ltQ4RAgSkAKCnUJxf0Rlv9EzBN/w3FkbTT3B2AgCgk4ag j2smGvS6oNy+G0JR/AhyPRI= =m8i0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] [Fwd: [USN-359-1] Python vulnerability]
Chris Withers schrieb: ouch... I'd imagine Zope is vulnerable to this? What source version(s) of python have these problems fixed? Well debian also had it already. I'd guess current sources should have it too. Watch changes.txt and friends. Regards Tino ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Surprising load test results?
On 10/6/06, Pascal Peregrina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: + 100 concurrent threads looks a little heavy Or more to the point, you need to test with 1, 5, 10, 20 and 50 as well and look at performance effects of that. Just hitting it with a 100 and assuming that's useful and valid data doesn't work. ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
