On Feb 29, 2008, at 21:08 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:00 , Andreas Jung wrote:
You don't have to wait for for new Zope versions. Defining the
interface
officially in Zope 2.10, 2.11 and trunk will raise no problems. I
have no problems with putting
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:00 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. Februar 2008 08:39:05 + Martin Aspeli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, we should also provide a way to get an interface or
something
else describing the configuration for introspection purposes.
Wa
Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-2-29 06:43 +0100:
> ...
>> When the export handler is able to extract all relevant configuration
>> parameters for an index, why should the import handler
>> not be able to check the configuration parameters in a profile
>> against an existing index and determine that it
--On 29. Februar 2008 16:45:19 +0100 yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 28. Februar 2008 09:38:31 +0100 yuppie
wrote:
I'd prefer a IConfigurableIndex interface that also has a set method.
I added the IIndexConfiguration to the Zope trunk. I don't think that a
set m
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 28. Februar 2008 09:38:31 +0100 yuppie
wrote:
I'd prefer a IConfigurableIndex interface that also has a set method.
I added the IIndexConfiguration to the Zope trunk. I don't think that a
set method is a good idea. Removing and re-adding is possibly the
cleanest sol
--On 29. Februar 2008 14:07:57 +0100 Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Feb 29, 2008, at 13:17 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. Februar 2008 13:09:01 +0100 Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
My personal opinion: I'd rather see the interface-based solution
in a
few w
--On 28. Februar 2008 09:38:31 +0100 yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
Andreas Jung wrote:
How about the following idea:
- within the Zope core we define an _optional_ interface for indexes -
something like:
class IIndexConfiguration(Interface):
def getConfiguration()
On Feb 29, 2008, at 13:17 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. Februar 2008 13:09:01 +0100 Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
My personal opinion: I'd rather see the interface-based solution
in a
few weeks or a couple months (the next Zope release) than the, umh,
less-than-profess
--On 29. Februar 2008 13:09:01 +0100 Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
My personal opinion: I'd rather see the interface-based solution in a
few weeks or a couple months (the next Zope release) than the, umh,
less-than-professional solution that will stick around forever. As
such
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:00 , Andreas Jung wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >--On 29. Februar 2008 08:39:05 + Martin Aspeli
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Of course, we should also provide a way to get an interface or
> >>something
> >>else describing
On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:00 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. Februar 2008 08:39:05 + Martin Aspeli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, we should also provide a way to get an interface or
something
else describing the configuration for introspection purposes.
Waiting one
or two Zo
--On 29. Februar 2008 08:39:05 + Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, we should also provide a way to get an interface or something
else describing the configuration for introspection purposes. Waiting one
or two Zope versions for that to get a non-purging GS import handle
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 28. Februar 2008 20:35:09 +0100 Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-2-28 07:13 +0100:
--On 27. Februar 2008 21:59:58 + Maurits van Rees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
greenman, on 2008-02-27:
So, for the catalog.xml importer, why c
--On 28. Februar 2008 20:35:09 +0100 Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-2-28 07:13 +0100:
--On 27. Februar 2008 21:59:58 + Maurits van Rees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
greenman, on 2008-02-27:
So, for the catalog.xml importer, why can't the trigger for
Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-2-28 07:13 +0100:
>--On 27. Februar 2008 21:59:58 + Maurits van Rees
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> greenman, on 2008-02-27:
>>> So, for the catalog.xml importer, why can't the trigger for reindexing
>>> an index be a flag on the catalog index declaration itself? I
Hi!
Andreas Jung wrote:
How about the following idea:
- within the Zope core we define an _optional_ interface for indexes -
something like:
class IIndexConfiguration(Interface):
def getConfiguration():
""" Returns a dict with index specific configuration
--On 27. Februar 2008 21:59:58 + Maurits van Rees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
greenman, on 2008-02-27:
So, for the catalog.xml importer, why can't the trigger for reindexing
an index be a flag on the catalog index declaration itself? Is it
really generic setups role to determine if chang
On Feb 28, 10:59 am, Maurits van Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> greenman, on 2008-02-27:
>
> > So, for the catalog.xml importer, why can't the trigger for reindexing
> > an index be a flag on the catalog index declaration itself? Is it
> > really generic setups role to determine if changes to
greenman, on 2008-02-27:
> So, for the catalog.xml importer, why can't the trigger for reindexing
> an index be a flag on the catalog index declaration itself? Is it
> really generic setups role to determine if changes to an index
> invalidate the values it already holds? If you were to change
> pr
I was wondering if there was a simpler solution. The proposal is
oriented towards testing current state to the proposed new state for
individual indexes. This avoids the need for the profile declarations
to assume a present state of the catalog. But looking at other parts
of GS - e.g. viewlet manag
20 matches
Mail list logo
