Tres Seaver wrote:
Customization is hard: without TTW modules we *can't* do customization
of arbitrary view logic.
What's the blocker on this? Same thing that's blocking TTW schemas?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
-
Tres Seaver wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
I saw Philip W. do a working prototype of this at the PyCon Dallas
sprints.
I don't know if anything happened with this after PyCon,
and it would need at least some UI work.
If the UI is to integrate with the CMF skins tool, I suspect there will
need
I am using it rather heavily. The overengineery impression comes
from the fact that it is intended to be highly pluggable (CMF-style,
i.e. by replacing tools). For example I always replace the generator
with something more robust than a simple counter. Using it is
straight forward, you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
I saw Philip W. do a working prototype of this at the PyCon Dallas
sprints.
I don't know if anything happened with this after PyCon,
and it would need at least some UI work.
If the UI is
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I sent an email about this a couple days ago. Basically, I'm down to
one failing unit test in CMFUid and have discovered that CMFUid is
basically broken in 2.0/trunk. I also sent an email on this issue to
the list, hoping that the developers who wrote CMFUid and lobbied
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 15:08, Chris Withers wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I sent an email about this a couple days ago. Basically, I'm down
to one failing unit test in CMFUid and have discovered that
CMFUid is basically broken in 2.0/trunk. I also
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 15:08, Chris Withers wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I sent an email about this a couple days ago. Basically, I'm down to
one failing unit test in CMFUid and have discovered that CMFUid is
basically broken
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 15:51, Florent Guillaume wrote:
How would people feel about deprecating it for 2.1 and removing
it in 2.3 if no-one steps up who wants it?
Well, I have my own opinion about that, but the course of action
depends mostly on
Hi Jens. Z3 has it own uid facilities. I guess folks could pick this up
through five could they not? Its all moving in that direction in any case.
Regards
David
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 15:51, Florent Guillaume wrote:
How would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 16:33, David Pratt wrote:
added text at bottom
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 15:51, Florent Guillaume wrote:
How would people feel about deprecating it for 2.1 and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 15:08, Chris Withers wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I sent an email about this a couple days ago. Basically, I'm down
to one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Apr 2006, at 17:49, Tres Seaver wrote:
I believe the work which Philipp and I did at PyCon will land for Zope
2.10 / Five 1.4. Until then, we don't have any story for view
customization: sites which depend on such customization will need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
CMF 2.0.0 is now out the door and I have made some updates to the
roadmap document. Please take a look and give me some feedback on the
dates (well, the only dates we have set are the dates for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adding missing pieces to the Zope 3 integration puzzle which could
not make it into the 2.0 release for time reasons will be the main
objective for CMF 2.1. At this point the following items are
planned to land in CMF 2.1:
* Local skin
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:13:45PM +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adding missing pieces to the Zope 3 integration puzzle which could
not make it into the 2.0 release for time reasons will be the main
objective for CMF 2.1. At this point the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Apr 2006, at 22:13, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
* Use of Zope 3-style container events throughout, removal of
all manage_* methods.
Is this already implemented on the tseaver-catalog_events branch
or is more work necessary than merging
Hi Jens,
CMF 2.0.0 is now out the door and I have made some updates to the
roadmap document. Please take a look and give me some feedback on the
dates (well, the only dates we have set are the dates for CMF 2.1) and
the description of 2.1:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
There's one specific item that I couldn't find enough information
on to make a comment, which is events support. Florent, what is the
status on the trunk and the 1.6 branch?
In 1.6 and 2.0 events are not used beyond what Zope has. So events
are not used to trigger
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Hi all,
I finally sat down and put up a CMF roadmap page. It is pretty condensed
right now, and I'm asking for feedback:
http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/roadmap
There's one specific item that I couldn't find enough information on to
make a comment, which is
On 15 Feb 2006, at 14:12, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
There's one specific item that I couldn't find enough information
on to make a comment, which is events support. Florent, what is
the status on the trunk and the 1.6 branch?
In 1.6 and 2.0 events are not used beyond
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 15 Feb 2006, at 23:53, Martin Aspeli wrote:
There's one specific item that I couldn't find enough information
on to make a comment, which is events support. Florent, what is
the status on the trunk and the 1.6
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I finally sat down and put up a CMF roadmap page. It is pretty condensed
right now, and I'm asking for feedback:
http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/roadmap
Great!
I have one comment: While we first worked on CMF 2.0 and later
backported some stuff to CMF
On 12 Feb 2006, at 15:38, yuppie wrote:
I have one comment: While we first worked on CMF 2.0 and later
backported some stuff to CMF 1.6 the lists of new features are a
bit confusing now. I think for CMF 2.0 we should only list changes
compared to CMF 1.6. (The CHANGES.txt files are also
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 12 Feb 2006, at 15:38, yuppie wrote:
I have one comment: While we first worked on CMF 2.0 and later
backported some stuff to CMF 1.6 the lists of new features are a bit
confusing now. I think for CMF 2.0 we should only list changes
compared to CMF 1.6.
24 matches
Mail list logo
