[Zope-CMF] CMF Tests: 9 OK
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list. Period Mon Sep 22 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Sep 23 11:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 9 messages: 9 from CMF Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : CMF-1.6 Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:27:27 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009947.html Subject: OK : CMF-1.6 Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:28:59 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009948.html Subject: OK : CMF-2.0 Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:30:29 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009949.html Subject: OK : CMF-2.0 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:31:59 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009950.html Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:33:29 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009951.html Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:34:59 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009952.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:36:29 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009953.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:37:59 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009954.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Sep 22 21:39:29 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-September/009955.html ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] using zope.dublincore in CMFCore
Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version. Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those directly where possible? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] using zope.dublincore in CMFCore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC > interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface > explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version. > > Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived > classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those directly > where possible? Do you see any specific benefit, more than just "replace our code with other code to shift the maintenance burden"? jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkjZEaIACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIXggCfTlhL6W3aWonllp8ZteSLLnKb T1UAoJlAkKXVLAX/A9aF6fJK1wYICjsu =k4fA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] using zope.dublincore in CMFCore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC > interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface > explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version. > > Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived > classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those directly > where possible? - -0 unless we come up with convincing evidence that the Z3 version is actually being maintained by somebody who cares about it: Actually, after looking at it, -1 unless it is getting some love *and* we can avoid entangling ourselves with its policy-laden configure.zcml. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI2RTV+gerLs4ltQ4RAqc+AJ9EfR/RcnCGxi8h+QDBD0+P2oxGsQCgnSzb I6WuWmqGs7u0IBKCG8OFBtk= =H/H7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] using zope.dublincore in CMFCore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 23, 2008, at 18:09 , Tres Seaver wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Wichert Akkerman wrote: >> Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived >> classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those directly >> where possible? > > - -0 unless we come up with convincing evidence that the Z3 version is > actually being maintained by somebody who cares about it: Actually, > after looking at it, -1 unless it is getting some love *and* we can > avoid entangling ourselves with its policy-laden configure.zcml. The zope.dublincore code hasn't seen any maintenance since being "exploded" out into a separate egg, this is true. In all fairness, the DublinCore module in CMFDefault hasn't seen many changes that are specifically Dublin Core-related, either, but then again it hasn't needed much. It's been working very well with very little maintenance. "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" and keep what we have is what I'd say here. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkjZFyUACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLLjACguy8f+yHpK23ak85LRwQ4r+e7 jvoAniuld7BlxLo4sHR/Jxf8UfawpNgM =tyfE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] using zope.dublincore in CMFCore
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC > > interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface > > explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version. > > > > Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived > > classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those directly > > where possible? > > Do you see any specific benefit, more than just "replace our code with > other code to shift the maintenance burden"? I found myself writing some code which needs to get dublin core data from content and should work for both zope3 and zope2 applications, except for the difference in interfaces. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] using zope.dublincore in CMFCore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 23, 2008, at 19:19 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote: >> On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: >> >>> Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived >>> classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those directly >>> where possible? >> >> Do you see any specific benefit, more than just "replace our code >> with >> other code to shift the maintenance burden"? > > I found myself writing some code which needs to get dublin core data > from > content and should work for both zope3 and zope2 applications, except > for the difference in interfaces. As you already found, the ICMFDublinCore should be supported by both, right? jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkjZJrwACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLyQgCgrUojEKCwI6P5I8jvU4WNQbbr ZI4AnjesKxD+A/GNmICYY3bqlp5UrdSk =HDOn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] using zope.dublincore in CMFCore
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Sep 23, 2008, at 19:19 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > >> On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: > >> > >>> Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived > >>> classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those directly > >>> where possible? > >> > >> Do you see any specific benefit, more than just "replace our code > >> with > >> other code to shift the maintenance burden"? > > > > I found myself writing some code which needs to get dublin core data > > from > > content and should work for both zope3 and zope2 applications, except > > for the difference in interfaces. > > As you already found, the ICMFDublinCore should be supported by both, > right? Except for the fact that no CMF (or AT) content type uses the zope.dublincore variant? ICMFDublinCore is also much more than I'm interested in - IDCTimes is all I need. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] 'add' actions and views - a proposal
yuppie wrote: > Martin Aspeli wrote: >> Wichert Akkerman wrote: >>> Why not a ++add++ traverser? Aren't traversed supposed to be used for >>> that kind of thing? Or does a view gives us something here that a >>> traverser doesn't? >> Namespace traversal adapters are similar to IPublishTraverse solutions. >> The difference is that the namespace traversal adapter normally returns >> something "containerish" from which traversal continues. I think it's >> intended mostly as a "redirect" to a different traversal namespace, e.g. >> in the way that plone.app.portlets has namespaces for portlet managers. > > I don't think a containerish return value is characteristic for > namespace adapters. For example the ++view++ traverser usually doesn't > return something containerish. > > I now implemented an ++add++ traverser in my sandbox and it seems to > work fine. Cool. :) Let us know when it's checked in, I'd love to have a look at it! Cheers, Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
