yuppie wrote:
Hi!
The skin scripts for complex forms in CMF like folder_contents are
currently big monolithic blocks of code. All the values needed in the
template are computed in a predefined order that makes sure expensive
tasks like querying the catalog or listing folder contents are
The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector
(http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF).
Assigned and Open
jens
- Discussion replies removal,
[Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/391
- 'CMF Default Workflow [Revision 2]' Extension broken,
Hi Whit!
whit wrote:
yuppie wrote:
I ended up using this method as decorator for most methods:
def memoize(func):
memo = {}
def memoized_func(*args):
if args not in memo:
memo[args] = func(*args)
return memo[args]
return memoized_func
Are there
Hi!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Alec,
I see that plone_schemas covers most of what I was asking about, which
is great :)
I took a look at plone_schemas' example type. I can't get it to install
(Zope won't start, some conflict of versions, I'm sure), but looking at
the code, I notice that
Martijn Faassen wrote:
In an earlier thread I argued that this modified version of Five 1.2
should perhaps get a new name to indicate the additional feature. Do you
all think that this would be feasible, or should we just go on with
1.2.1? If we give it a new name, the question is obviously
On 16 Jan 2006, at 11:26, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is
actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this
regard? Is
Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8?
Yes.
Is CMF?
CMF 1.6 is. I
Tim Hicks wrote:
The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It
gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology
entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate
early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages.
You can turn that
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0
| release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So
| there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess.
There is at least
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0
| release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So
| there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I
On 1/16/06, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a fundamentally different way of developing and installing
products. Therefore it's good to ask why we would want to expose such a
fundamentally new feature for Zope 2.8. Do we really want to start
explaining to people that My product
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8?
Yes.
Yes to which question?
Yes to Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8.
Perhaps these use cases aren't
driven by Plone/CMF core and some other packages would like to use
this in Zope 2.8? Can they be identified?
The
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0
| | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0
| | release) and we
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Okay, I read CMF 2.0 is targetting Zope 2.9 now, but Plone is, as of
yet, still targeting CMF 1.6. Whether they really will I guess also
depends on Plone's commitment to release this spring and suppress
changing things around.
I think there are two reasons Plone 2.5 is
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Fair enough. It seems to several people, though, that explaining to
people how Python packages are installed and then how you hook up these
packages into your instances is easier than explaining all the magic
that revolves around Products to them. Because in
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Yes. In fact, if one exists, it's automatically put on your PYTHONPATH
for that instance. I think we should make Zope 2.8+ instance skeleta
grow a lib/python directory. This can hardly be considered a feature, so
we should be able to sneak it into the next
Tres Seaver wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I propose to add a new directive registerProfile in GenericSetup so
that profile registration can be done through zcml.
What namespace should I use?
How about 'http://namespaces.zope.org/genericsetup'?
Ohh, could I state the obvious and suggest
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The general use case is to stop having to put things in Products. When
now writing Zope 2 software, a lot of code basically expects stuff to be
in Products, Rocky's modifications make that go away and add a ZCML
directive to let Zope 2 pick up packages from
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Rocky how does your effort relate to Basket by the way? ISTR that Basket
aims at answering a similar use case.
Basket is for distributing zope2 products in egg form. I've been
working with Chris closely on it. In fact I added the support that
allows people to write
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I recently introduced the fact that in extension profiles list
properties aren't purged by default.
But really this introduces problems, as if you simply import an
extension profile twice you'll get all you lists doubled.
So I think I'll use the opposite semantic,
Rocky Burt wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I propose to add a new directive registerProfile in GenericSetup so
that profile registration can be done through zcml.
What namespace should I use?
How about 'http://namespaces.zope.org/genericsetup'?
Ohh, could I state
On 15 Jan 2006, at 18:38, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Before cutting the CMF 2.0 alpha GenericSetup should move out of
the CMF repository. I'm volunteering to do that. Is there anything
or anyone I need to wait on before doing so?
Everyone: I'll be working on this tonight. Please get all
I remember some discussion of this in the past.
Transitionally, it would be helpful to be able to register local
utilities to a tool name, and then have getToolByName spit out a
deprecation warning and return an appropriate object.
thoughts? comments? does this exist somewhere already?
-w
On 16 Jan 2006, at 18:28, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006, at 18:38, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Before cutting the CMF 2.0 alpha GenericSetup should move out of
the CMF repository. I'm volunteering to do that. Is there anything
or anyone I need to wait on before doing so?
Everyone:
i'm -1 for expending extra effort to get this working on Zope 2.8. new
features should arrive w/ new versions. Plone 2.5 will require CMF-1.6,
which will work w/ both Z2.8 and Z2.9. those who want this feature can
run Plone on Z2.9, no prob.
i'd much rather see us focus our efforts on
whit wrote:
I remember some discussion of this in the past.
Transitionally, it would be helpful to be able to register local
utilities to a tool name, and then have getToolByName spit out a
deprecation warning and return an appropriate object.
thoughts? comments? does this exist somewhere
26 matches
Mail list logo
