The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector
(http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF).
Assigned and Open
hannosch
- [GS] Error when choosing initial_configuration ,
[Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/473
tseaver
- CMF needs View-based
Hi!
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
After some back and forth CMF 2.1 will just mark the first step of the
tools-as-utilities refactoring. We now have a working
five.localsitemanager that adjusts the persistent components
registries to Zope 2, but right now only a few CMF tools can be used
as
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
After some back and forth CMF 2.1 will just mark the first step of the
tools-as-utilities refactoring. We now have a working
five.localsitemanager that adjusts the persistent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
After some back and forth CMF 2.1 will just mark the first step of the
tools-as-utilities refactoring. We now have a working
five.localsitemanager that adjusts the persistent components
Hi!
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Scenario 1+2 :
The methods that depend on REQUEST are moved to browser views as
below instead of quickly fixed as in the scenario above. They can
then be deprecated on the tool.
Once a tool has
Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 05.07.2007 um 17:12 schrieb Tres Seaver:
I think we have to leave existing REQUEST-acquiring APIs alone, but
deprecate them, and then implement them by calling *new* REQUEST-passing
APIs. I would rather add methods than add hackery around the default
REQUEST argument,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
2.) The ability to create valid snapshots is a very basic GS feature.
I'd like to see http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/473 resolved *before*
the next beta release.
I fixed a couple of GenericSetup bugs recently which may have fixed this
one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Scenario 1+2 :
The methods that depend on REQUEST are moved to browser views as
below instead of quickly fixed as in the scenario
