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: htt
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 direc
-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 object
-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 in
-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
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 objecti
-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, o
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 i
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 solu